2018-02-13

Routine Proceedings
Survivor Pension Benefits ActMs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP):  moved for leave to introduce Bill C-397, an act to amend certain acts in relation to survivor pension benefits.
Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to introduce a bill to amend several acts that discriminate against seniors. 
The federal government currently denies surviving spouse pensions to the military, members of Parliament, judges, employees of crown corporations, public servants, and employees of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police if the retiree entered into a spousal relationship after age 60. The so-called “gold-digger” legislation is archaic and unfair, especially given that these men and women have devoted their lives to Canadian public service in different capacities. This bill would eliminate legislation that denies surviving spouses a pension.
 The legislation disproportionately affects women. The burden of caregiving often falls on spouses and most often on women. It is disgraceful that after caring for their partners, when their ailing partners die, some caregivers are denied a pension. In the case of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, legislation was enacted at the turn of the 20th century to prevent deathbed marriages or gold-digging, when women were accused of marrying veterans in order to get their pensions. The policy has not changed in 100 years and continues to have repercussions on families today.
The amendment I wish to make concerns income equality, health issues, and women's issues. With the current legislation, the families of veterans, judges, members of Parliament, public servants, employees of crown corporations and the RCMP are at risk of living in poverty. I wish to change all of that with this amendment. 
 (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) 
PetitionsMr. Dave MacKenzie (Oxford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by hundreds of Ontarians, many of whom are from my riding. The petition calls on the House of Commons to permit Christians to robustly exercise their religious beliefs, both in private and public acts, without coercion, constraint or discrimination.
Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table petitions which note that eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia, have the highest mortality rate of all mental illnesses. Children as young as seven are being diagnosed and hospitalized with eating disorders. More than a million Canadians have been negatively affected by their own struggles with eating disorders or those of their loved ones. The petitioners want parliamentarians to understand that the sooner people receive the treatment they need, the better their chances of recovery.
That is why the petitioners are asking the government to support Motion No. 117 and initiate discussions with the provincial and territorial health ministers and all stakeholders to develop a comprehensive pan-Canadian eating disorder strategy to facilitate prevention, diagnosis, treatment, support, and research.
Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise this morning to present a petition.
 This petition, which is from constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands, Mayne Island, Saturna, Victoria area, and North Saanich, calls upon the House assembled to take action to prevent the trade, distribution, and sale of shark fin. It is understood globally, by scientific opinion universally, that shark species around the world are endangered. The practice of finning of sharks is not allowed in Canadian waters, but the sale and distribution of shark fins is. The petitioners would like the practice to end.
Questions on the Order PaperMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker:  Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Fisheries ActHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Lib.):  moved that Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence, be read the second time and referred to a committee. 
Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to speak in the House of Commons on this important legislation. You, Mr. Speaker, are a former minister of fisheries and oceans yourself and will understand the significance of the Fisheries Act in communities like the ones you and I represent, so it is a privilege for me to have this opportunity to stand in the House.
Canada is uniquely blessed with an abundance of freshwater and marine coastal areas that are both ecologically significant and linked to the economic prosperity of Canadians. Our government knows that we have a responsibility to steward these resources for future generations while maintaining economic opportunities for many people and communities who depend on them.
In my mandate letter, the Prime Minister asked me to restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards into the Fisheries Act. In 2012, the government got rid of a number of fish habitat protection measures without engaging indigenous peoples, fishers, scientists, conservation groups, coastal communities, or the general public in any meaningful way and without their support. What made that decision even more unacceptable was the fact that the changes were buried in a 430-page omnibus bill in the hope they would slip by unnoticed. Canadians definitely noticed. 
Indigenous and environmental groups were especially concerned with changes made to the act and rightly perceived those amendments as weakening what should be of shared concern for Canadians: the protection of fish and fish habitat. Industry partners were thrust into uncertainty with regard to their responsibilities under the act.
Our government has worked and consulted with a broad range of Canadians, and we encouraged everyone to be part of this important conversation. Provinces, environmental groups, fishers associations, indigenous groups, and thousands of Canadians helped shape the amendments currently before the House of Commons.
The proposed amendments to Bill C-68 are part of the government's broader strategy to review environmental and regulatory processes and cover several key themes, including partnership with indigenous peoples; supporting planning and integrated management; enhancing regulation and enforcement; improving partnerships and collaboration, including with industry; and monitoring and reporting back to Canadians.
The Fisheries Act is one of Canada's oldest pieces of legislation. It was enacted shortly after Confederation. It has been amended very little since that time, which is why it needs to be updated and modernized. To that effect, Bill C-68 adds new provisions dealing with the objectives and considerations that must be examined in the decision-making process under the act. The proposed objectives seek to create a proper management and control framework for fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, particularly through pollution prevention.
The new considerations under these amendments are designed to clearly guide the responsibility of a minister of fisheries and oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard when making decisions under the act. Bill C-68 proposes amendments that would restore protections for fish and fish habitat to ensure that these protections apply to all fish. We are reintroducing the prohibition against the harmful alteration, disruption, or destruction of fish habitat, as well as the prohibition against the death of fish by means other than fishing. 
We are also introducing measures that would allow for the better management of projects that may be harmful to fish or fish habitat through a new permitting scheme for big projects and codes of practice for smaller ones, so that industry partners, as well as everyday Canadians, can be certain about their responsibilities but not unreasonably burdened when undertaking small, local projects.
In the past, uncertainty in the act has caused some uncertainty among project proponents with respect to their obligations and responsibilities. The proposed amendments create regulatory authorities that will make it possible to establish a list of designated projects, including the commitments and activities that will still require a licence.
Our goal is to streamline these processes, and we will be engaging with provinces and territories as well as indigenous peoples and stakeholders to decide which kinds of projects should be on the designated project list.
We are also formalizing the creation of a proponent-led habitat banking regime. Habitat banking is an international best practice for offsetting project impacts where a freshwater or marine area is created, restored, or enhanced by working to improve fish habitat in advance of a project's impact. 
Habitat loss and degradation as well as changes to fish passage and flow are all contributing to the decline of freshwater and marine fish habitats in Canada today. It is imperative that Canada restore degraded fish habitats. That is why amendments to the Fisheries Act propose requiring the consideration of restoration as part of project decision-making. 
These amendments provide clearer, stronger, and easier rules to establish and manage ecologically significant areas and provide stand-alone regulations to protect sensitive or important fish habitats. Given the important ecological characteristics of sensitive areas, certain types of work and activities may be prohibited and others may be identified as being subject to a special information gathering under a new authorization regime.
During the review of the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act, we heard over and over again about the need to improve access to information on government activities related to the protection of fish and fish habitat. Indigenous communities, industry associations, environmental groups, universities, and my colleagues on the House of Commons standing committee all talked about the importance of transparency in the decision-making process under the act. 
In order to re-establish public confidence, we are proposing amendments to establish a public registry, which would be available online. By enabling greater transparency, the registry would allow Canadians to hold the government to account in its federal decision-making with regard to fish and their habitat.
Fisheries resources and aquatic habitats have important social, cultural, and economic significance for many indigenous peoples. The respect for the rights of indigenous peoples as well as taking into account their unique interests and aspirations in fisheries-related economic opportunities and the protection of fish and fish habitat are important means of renewing our relationship with indigenous peoples.
For instance, the Fisheries Act is being amended to require the minister to consider any potential adverse effects resulting from decisions the minister might make in accordance with the rights of Canada's indigenous peoples, as set out in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
In addition, our government recognizes the importance of the traditional knowledge of Canada's indigenous peoples in sound decision-making regarding fish and fish habitat.
Indigenous peoples across Canada, and other Canadians from coast to coast to coast, can rest assured that the government will act to protect the confidential traditional knowledge that indigenous people would share with the government under the provisions of this legislation.
Many indigenous communities are in close proximity to areas where projects that may affect fish and fish habitat are proposed, and many communities see new roles for themselves in how these decisions are made.
We have proposed long-overdue amendments that would provide for the making of agreements with indigenous governing bodies to further the purposes of the act, as we have done in the past with provinces and territories.
There are currently no legislative or regulatory requirements in place with respect to the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks.
The commissioner of environment and sustainable development, as well as our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, have recommended that any revisions to the Fisheries Act should include direction for the restoration and recovery of fish habitat and fish stocks. 
Environmental groups have also called on the government to adopt measures aimed at the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks within the Fisheries Act. This is why we are proposing amendments that would require decisions affecting a stock in the critical zone to consider whether there are measures in place aimed at rebuilding that stock, and, when a minister is of the opinion that habitat degradation is a cause of the decline of the stock, whether measures are in place to restore such habitat. 
This positive obligation on governments and greater transparency, we believe are essential to strengthening the Fisheries Act. 
We also heard Canadians' views on other important issues related to the Fisheries Act. Although the number of aquariums that keep cetaceans in captivity for public display has fallen overall, this is still a sensitive issue that Canadians are deeply concerned about.
Our government recognizes that it is now wrong to capture these magnificent creatures for public display. Consequently, we are proposing amendments to the Fisheries Act that would prohibit the capture of a cetacean when the intent is to bring it into captivity, except in circumstances where the cetacean is injured, in distress, or in need of rehabilitation. 
The Senate has, for a long time, done good work in respect to this important issue. I want to salute former Senator Wilfred Moore of Nova Scotia and others in the Senate who have continued to press this important issue in the minds of Canadians. 
Some 72,000 Canadians make their living from fishing and fishing-related activities. Most of them, including self-employed inshore harvesters, are part of Canada's growing middle class. In many places across Atlantic Canada and Quebec, the fishery is the economic, social, and cultural heart of communities. As the fisheries minister, one of my duties is to ensure that these important traditions endure. However, threats remain to this way of life. Fish harvesters, particularly in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, have told us time and again that they need greater protection for their economic security, and they need help to ensure their economic independence.
It was clear to me that these important policies, like the owner-operator and fleet separation policies, were being circumvented by controlling agreements, which threaten the independence of the inshore and midshore fleets by removing the control of licences from individual harvesters to larger corporate interests. The amendments we are proposing would entrench existing inshore policies into law, with all the legal enforcement power required to protect small coastal communities and independent inshore harvesters. 
I stand firm in supporting the economic and cultural fabric of these coastal communities. Our government has recognized that a licensing regime that supports independent inshore harvesters is critical to the economic livelihood of these communities and the families and Canadians who depend on them. 
As I said, we looked at ways to strengthen the independence of the inshore sector and enforce the act more robustly. That is why we are proposing amendments that enshrine a specific power in the Fisheries Act, rather than a policy, in order to develop regulations that support the independence of inshore commercial licence holders. The amendments proposed today would entrench into law the power to make regulations on owner-operator and fleet separation policies in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.
In so doing, this act helps to protect middle-class jobs in our coastal communities by ensuring that present and future fisheries and oceans ministers may consider the preservation and promotion of the independence of licence-holders in commercial inshore fisheries in the decision-making process.
I want to thank a number of organizations that have played a key role in these amendments with respect to owner-operator and fleet separation. The FFAW, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, le Regroupement des pêcheurs professionnels de homard du sud de la Gaspésie, the Gulf Nova Scotia Fleet Planning Board, the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, and the Canadian Independent Fish Harvester's Federation have been instrumental in this important work.
Fishing can be a dangerous occupation, involving many risks not only for fish harvesters, but for the marine environment as well. 
With the unprecedented death of 12 North Atlantic right whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence from June to September last year, we know that Canadians expect prompt and urgent action by their government. This is why we are proposing amendments to the Fisheries Act that provide a new fisheries management order power to establish quick and targeted fisheries management measures. These measures will be used for 45-day increments where there is a recognizable threat to the conservation and protection of our marine ecosystems. The proposed fisheries management order power is meant to address emerging issues when a fishery is already under way and when time-sensitive and targeted measures are also paramount.
In my mandate letter, I was asked by the Prime Minister to increase the proportion of Canada's marine and coastal areas that are protected to 5% by the end of 2017, and to 10% by 2020, which is the target we are now on track to achieve. I am pleased to report to the House that we have not only achieved our 2017 target, but we will continue to work diligently to ensure that we surpass the 10% commitment through the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. 
To help us fulfill these international commitments and obligations, we are proposing amendments to the Fisheries Act that provide ministerial authority to make regulations to establish long-term spatial restrictions to fishing activities under the act specifically for the purpose of conserving and protecting marine biodiversity.
We are also proposing amendments that will strengthen the act. During the many public engagement sessions that were held, Canadians made it clear that they wanted to see more fishery officers, conservation officers, and patrols, as well as more offenders being caught and punished. 
To incorporate modern protection mechanisms into the act, some amendments are being proposed to clarify, strengthen, and modernize enforcement powers under the act, for example by empowering fishery officers to intercept any vessel or vehicle and require it to be moved to a place where an inspection can be carried out.
The proposed amendments also seek to increase the authority of the courts with respect to seizure and forfeiture under the act, and allow the use of alternative measure agreements to address certain contraventions.
As I mentioned earlier, the Fisheries Act is one of the oldest and most important environmental laws in Canada. It was passed in 1868, just one year after Confederation, and did not change much until the late 1970s, when habitat protection provisions were first added by one of my predecessors, who, coincidentally, was my father, Roméo LeBlanc. 
Then, as now, the act remains a model among Canada's environmental laws. That is why we have ensured the amendments we have introduced to the Fisheries Act include updated and modern tools that are the hallmarks found in other environmental legislation. We are proposing modern provisions such as the power to create advisory panels, fee-setting authorities, and provisions respecting the collection of information.
I consider myself privileged to stand in this House, as my father did in 1977, to introduce amendments to the Fisheries Act that served his generation. I hope that this new modernized act will live up to my father's legacy and do for our generation what he and the previous Parliament did for theirs.
Mr. Robert Sopuck (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC): Madam Speaker, in reverting to the old way of doing things under the old Fisheries Act, as the minister is doing, I want to remind the minister of the 2009 report of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. She concluded that Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada cannot demonstrate that fish habitat are being adequately protected, as the Fisheries Act requires. Therefore, the minister is clearly going back to a failed model.
In response to the new Fisheries Act, the Canadian Electricity Association had this to say, “In practical terms, this means that virtually any action, without prior authorization, could be construed as being in contravention of this Act. Consequently, the reinstatement of these measures will result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities, and unduly delay and/or discourage investment in energy projects that directly support Canada’s clean growth agenda..”. 
As a result of all of these things that the Liberals are doing to lengthen and make our processes more complicated, Steve Williams, the Suncor CEO, said that Suncor would shun major new projects amid Canada's difficult regulatory environment. 
Why is the minister using this act to kill middle-class jobs?
Dominic LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, it will come as no surprise that I do not share my hon. colleague's opinion that the government it trying to kill middle-class jobs.
In fact, we believe that these amendments will support the Canadian economy, by first of all protecting jobs that are dependent on inshore and midshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. It is a critical part of ensuring that the economy of that part of the country is protected.
With respect to the specific comments my colleague made, precisely because we want to ensure that Canadians are able to fulfill their obligations under the Fisheries Act, we have decided to have a code of best practice policy for the kind of projects my colleague referred to, such as with the electrical associations. These Canadians have told us they want to comply with the Fisheries Act, want to ensure they are not damaging fish and fish habitat, but they want a regime that allows them to be compliant and does not overly burden them like some of the scare tactics we have heard in the past. Our policy achieves exactly that balance.
Mr. Fin Donnelly (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister and his team for bringing this overdue legislation to the Fisheries Act and modernizing it. One of the concerns I have is that this was not brought forward sooner. It was promised in the last election, and we wanted to see that soon after the 2015 election. However, two years later, we are here.
I am also very pleased to see that there is a focus on rebuilding plans in this act. This is a very positive move forward. We hope it is followed up with strong regulations to ensure that those plans have the needed teeth.
One thing we are disappointed to see, on the NDP side, is that salmon aquaculture is left with that conflicting mandate of conservation, and promotion of that industry that is harming our wild salmon. As well, there is no inclusion of environmental flows for fish. The minister mentioned strengthening owner-operator provisions for the inshore fleet on the east coast and Quebec, but was there any consideration for bringing that same focus on the west coast of British Columbia in Canada?
Dominic LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam for the work he and colleagues did on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We think that the 32 recommendations they made are largely incorporated into the amendments we are proposing in this legislation. We obviously look forward to working with him and other colleagues on the committee.
I share his sense of impatience. I wish we had been at this stage some months ago. However, we thought it was important to consult with Canadians and listen carefully to what people had to say in order to benefit from the best advice we could get from partners, provinces, indigenous and environmental groups, and associations representing fishers. We took time to get it right. I look forward to working with my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam and other members, if they think there are ways to improve, amend, or strengthen the legislation. We would obviously welcome those suggestions and look forward to that process.
He referred to the owner-operator circumstance on the west coast. We understand that this is a permissive part of the legislation. In Atlantic Canada, these policies have existed successfully for a long time. I have heard people on the west coast say they want to have that conversation, and we would obviously be open to talking to the industry and harvesters on the west coast to see how these successful policies could also benefit communities there.
Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this new Fisheries Act has been well received on the east coast by fishers, particularly the protection it will afford to the owner-operator, which goes to the heart of our inshore fishery in Atlantic Canada.
One of the issues there is concern on is that there is a hint of rescinding or transferring licences to new holders after a fixed period of time. Inshore fishers work for years to pay off the debt attached to their vessels, licences, and gear. They rightly see those assets as their only pension plan for their future.
Could the minister elaborate on whether he is anticipating any changes that would impact on the ability of those inshore fishers to transfer their licences and receive remuneration for that?
Dominic LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Egmont for his question, and also for his understanding and his advocacy in this important work.
The Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association has spoken to me a number of times about how lucky it is to have an advocate of his experience standing up for fishers and for that industry, which is so important in his province and for Atlantic Canada. It is a privilege to work with my colleague.
I had made some comments at a speech in Nova Scotia last summer. Some particular interests have distorted those comments in the subsequent period. In no way is there a plan or a desire on the part of the government to prevent the transfer of these licences that, as my colleague has noted, have successfully allowed for retirement planning, financial planning, and intergenerational transfers amongst harvesters. This is something we want to encourage.
What I did ask last summer, and I feel that we need to have this conversation, was how we could work with these harvesters and these communities to help support this intergenerational transfer. The cost of these licences in some cases is becoming prohibitive. Are there financing mechanisms that can be looked at, where the independence of these harvesters can be preserved, while at the same time encouraging this important transfer that my colleague referred to?
I will do anything I can to work with harvesters to support that.
Hon. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the minister, particularly for his evoking the memory of Roméo LeBlanc. I am proud to have his signature on my commission as an officer in the Canadian Forces in my office, and he is welcome to come see it. I had the privilege of serving on some fishery patrols when I was in the air force and on HMCS St. John's.
My question for the minister is on fishery patrols. In light of the fact that Canada lost its auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels, the Preserver and the Protecteur, we do not have the ability to replenish at sea for our navy or our Coast Guard vessels involved in fishery. 
Fortunately, a plan to fix that gap was planned with the Asterix ship out of the Davie shipyard in Quebec. The minister has been rather silent with respect to the importance of this deal. The Asterix is now in sea trials.
Could the minister speak about how important it is for us to replenish our Coast Guard and our navy ships at sea to make sure we patrol the Flemish Cap and all our fishing zones in Canada?
Dominic LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind comments, particularly with respect to my father. That is obviously of significance for me, and I thank him.
We recognize that Canadians expect a rigorous level of enforcement, both close to shore, on the wharf, on the rivers, and also on the high seas. I have been extraordinarily proud of the remarkable work done by the men and women of the Royal Canadian Navy and of the Canadian Coast Guard in this important endeavour.
Global partners have told me that they want Canada to be more present in global enforcement with respect to illegal, unreported fishing activities. We intend to invest considerably, as we have done in the last two years, in this effort. Nobody should think for a minute that we will not be prepared to take our important responsibility to enforce this legislation in every part of our coastal waters.
Robert Sopuck: Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to stand in the House and speak about the new Fisheries Act. I have had numerous interactions with the minister over my time in Parliament and I know his heart is in the right place. I do have some issues with the new Fisheries Act, however. My background is in fisheries. I have a graduate degree in fisheries biology and have been active in the field of fisheries science for over 20 years. 
I also sat on the fisheries and oceans committee in the previous government and for two years of the current government and was involved in the hearings regarding the new Fisheries Act.
The Fisheries Act was written in 1868 and had three fundamental functions: the proper management and control of fisheries, the conservation and protection of fish, and the protection of fish habitat and the prevention of pollution. It was considered one of the strongest pieces of environmental legislation that Canada had, but it evolved over the years to such a point that when we were in government we had to make some changes to the old Fisheries Act.
The courts had determined that what was considered fish habitat was expanded and expanded so that almost all of Canada became fish habitat. Therefore, the act became quite unwieldily and these were some of the problems with the act. This is from a paper that I wrote in 2001 for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy where we looked at the current Fisheries Act. That was about the time when, what we called back home, the “fish cops” descended on prairie Canada and wanted to inspect every drainage ditch that every producer had put in place. The old Fisheries Act created a lot of uncertainty and created more uncertainty in the development process in prairie Canada, especially for rural communities. It was very unclear as to who had jurisdiction over natural resource development.
It had a wide scope. The definition of fish habitat under the old act included entire watersheds and extended the reach of the federal government to policy areas such as watershed and land use planning, areas where DFO clearly lacked expertise. Again, we are going back to this old regime. The program removed any regulatory discretion since all fish habitat was considered important. There was no ranking of significant fish habitat versus habitats that were less significant.
Canada is a very large place. In my province of Manitoba, for example, we have 100,000 lakes and no one can know everything about all these water bodies. I think Ontario has 250,000 lakes. We look at our coastlines, and the amount of fish habitat and fisheries water in Canada is absolutely enormous. Most of these fish populations are fairly poorly studied, and because of that, all water bodies are presumed to be fish habitat until proven otherwise.
Under the old act and again with the new act, the costs of compliance are not considered and for poorer rural municipalities the costs of compliance under the old act and probably under the new act will add a major burden. It also adds to the regulatory burden. The new act is layered on top of other regulations and I am going to return to this very important point later.
Ironically, the old Fisheries Act actually threatened existing conservation programs. There are many angling groups that work very hard to enhance and improve fish habitat. When a fish habitat is enhanced and improved, I guess that is an alteration. For example, in my constituency the walleye is considered the most valuable fish. One way to enhance walleye populations is to take trucks on the ice in the middle of winter, put gravel on the ice, and when the ice melts the gravel sinks and voila, there is a new walleye spawning area and it increases the population of walleye. One wonders if that is an alteration of fish habitat. I guess it is, but again, this will inhibit very important conservation programs. Again, we think that the new act would have these same attributes.
As I said in my question for the minister, in 2009 the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development conducted an audit under the old Fisheries Act. Again this is the regime we are going back to and this is what the auditor found in 2009:
 Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada cannot demonstrate that fish habitat is being adequately protected as the Fisheries Act requires. In the 23 years since the Habitat Policy was adopted, many parts of the Policy have been implemented only partially by Fisheries and Oceans Canada or not at all. The Department does not measure habitat loss or gain. It has limited information on the state of fish habitat across Canada—that is, on fish stocks, the amount and quality of fish habitat, contaminants in fish, and overall water quality. Fisheries and Oceans Canada still cannot determine the extent to which it is progressing toward the Policy’s long-term objective of a net gain in fish habitat. 
The auditor went on to point out, “There has been little progress since 2001, when we last reported on this matter.” Therefore, the old way of doing business clearly failed.
We are going back to the old definition of fish habitat. Bill C-68 says that fish habitat means spawning grounds and any other areas, including “nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas, on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.”
 The key word is “indirectly”. Ultimately, every drop of water, unless it is evapotranspired, flows into a smaller waterway, then to a larger waterway, and then eventually to an area where fish exist. The word “indirectly” means that basically all of Canada would become fish habitat. The lawn on Parliament Hill would be fish habitat. Therefore, clearly, such a wide definition of fish habitat would give great licence to fisheries officers or as we call them back home “fish cops” and could cause some grave difficulties for communities and municipalities.
This wide definition of fish habitat was emphasized over and over by witnesses at the fisheries and oceans committee, of which I was a part of. I sat through every single meeting during the revisions to the Fisheries Act that the government was proposing. 
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is the largest farm group in Canada. Mr. Ron Bonnett is the president and also an active farmer in Ontario, and these are his comments regarding the pre-2012 Fisheries Act:
 The experience that many farmers had with the Fisheries Act, unfortunately, was not a positive one. It was characterized by lengthy bureaucratic applications for permitting and authorizations, and a focus on enforcement and compliance measures taken by officials.... 
 Many farmers were then relieved when the changes that were made just a few years ago [by the Conservative government] drastically improved the timeliness and cost of conducting regular maintenance and improvement activities to their farms as well as lifting the threat of being deemed out of compliance. 
Mr. Bonnett went on to point out:
 There are also many accounts of inconsistency in enforcement, monitoring, and compliance across Canada with different empowered organizations, which led to a confusion and indiscriminate approaches to enforcement and implementation. Even at the individual level, there were different interpretations of the act based on one's familiarity with agriculture.... 
 It is CFA's position that a complete revert to reinstate all provisions of the Fisheries Act as they were would be unproductive, would re-establish the same problems for farmers, and would provide little improvement in outcome for the protection and improvement of fish habitat. Human-made water bodies such as drainage ditches simply should not be treated as fish habitat. 
He went on to talk about the Fisheries Act of 2012 that we put in. He said:
 The current streamlined approach is working far better for all and efforts should continue this approach.... 
 Overall, any changes to the current Fisheries Act [2012] should be considered as to how they will support outcomes-based conservation rather than a process-oriented approach. 
This is a very important point. Here is a farmer saying that the old Fisheries Act actually inhibited conservation projects that the agriculture community wanted to implement on their own land. The old act, which sounds like the new proposed act, was process and process, and enforcement and enforcement. If we really want to improve fish habitat, then we should get out there and improve it, but it is going to be very problematic whether projects like these will be allowed to continue.
Again, regarding the changes that the Conservatives made, Mr. Bonnett said, “There are still some challenges when you have multiple jurisdictions working on that”, but again, he says the Conservatives Fisheries Act 2012 “has improved dramatically from what it was.”
Regarding the old act, Mr. Bonnett had this to say: 
 ...we saw a lot of inconsistency, depending on the DFO office. One would come in and say, no, there's no problem, go ahead. Another one would come in and it would be a whole bureaucratic process that you had to go through. I guess that would be the caution about just putting HADD back in place without having some clear and enforceable guidelines that spell out how you treat a municipal drain. 
It is important to talk about the issues agriculture had with the old Fisheries Act. I and many others on this side of the House represent agricultural communities. I saw first-hand, prior to my becoming a member of Parliament, the problems the act created.
What did we do to modify the former Fisheries Act? In the old Fisheries Act, there was equal consideration of all fish species and all fish habitat. We focused on the sustainability and ongoing productivity of commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries and on effective management of key threats, such as aquatic invasive species. 
Going back to the old act, all projects were reviewed for any impacts on fish and fish habitat, and advice was provided on a project-by-project basis. We went to the effective management of projects linked to fisheries of commercial, recreational, and aboriginal importance through the adoption of tools.
In the old act, there was duplication and overlap between federal and provincial review processes. Our act, the Fisheries Act from 2012, relied on best place delivery and partnerships with third parties.
 As I said, it goes back to the old way of doing business. Interestingly, in 1986, the department wrote “Policy for the Management of Fish Habitat”. I gather that it is still DFO's fish habitat policy. It is a great piece of work, done when Mr. Tom Siddon was the minister.
The 1986 fish habitat policy talks about the national application of the Fisheries Act. It says:
 The policy applies to those habitats directly or indirectly supporting those fish stocks or populations that sustain commercial, recreational or Native fishing activities of benefit to Canadians. 
That was the vernacular in 1986. Fisheries and Oceans Canada recognized its responsibility to protect and increase fish stocks. That first sentence is interesting. Our act, the Fisheries Act from 2012, is directly in line with the fish habitat policy in 1986, which talked about specific fisheries being protected through the protection of their habitat.
It goes on:
 In addition, Fisheries and Oceans recognizes its responsibility to protect and increase fish stocks and their habitats that have either a demonstrated potential themselves to sustain fishing activities, or a demonstrated ecological support function for the fisheries resources. In accordance with this philosophy, the policy will not necessarily be applied to all places where fish are found in Canada, but it will be applied as required in support of fisheries resource conservation. 
Our Fisheries Act of 2012 was actually in line with current departmental policy. This is why the act, as we wrote it, was well received by industry groups, rural communities, farm groups, angling groups across the country, and many others.
When we held our hearings at the fisheries committee, we asked a clear question of many of the witnesses who were obviously not in support of the Fisheries Act, 2012. We asked them if they could prove that there were any impacts on fish populations in Canada as a result of the changes made by the Fisheries Act, 2012. Naturally, there was a lot of hemming and hawing and saying they did not have enough information and that there was not enough time. On and on it went, but not a single witness could point to any fish population in Canada that was negatively affected by the changes embedded in the Fisheries Act of 2012.
Again, I am going to talk about the pros of the Conservative approach to fisheries conservation. We much prefer the direct approach to enhancing fish habitat. We created a program that was actually enabled by the Fisheries Act of 2012, called the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program, through which we partnered with fisheries conservation groups across the country. They provided half the funds for the work and the RFCPP provided the other half. Well over 800 fisheries enhancement projects were undertaken and successfully completed across the country.
 I would note that the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program is being sunsetted by the current Liberal government. Is “sunset” not a nice word? It implies sitting on the beach with a cool one and watching the sun go down. Actually, this program has been shot down and is going down in flames. There are hundreds of angry groups across Canada whose mission is to do direct conservation and enhancement of fisheries across the country that will now not be provided with support.
I would point out something about Atlantic salmon, a fish that is obviously near and dear to the minister's heart, I would hope. Our fisheries and oceans committee did a major study on Atlantic salmon, and not a single recommendation from that study has been implemented. We recommended a seal reduction program. We recommended a significant increase in the striped bass harvest. We also recommended that diplomatic action be taken against Greenland for overfishing our Atlantic salmon. Nothing has been done. 
Here is a clear case of the minister talking a good game about caring for fish, but there is a fish right in his backyard, the Atlantic salmon, of importance to thousands of anglers and businesses in his region, and nothing is being done to help that particular fish species. 
However, over $200,000 or $300,000 is going to the fish cops. I would rather see direct programming that would help Atlantic salmon stocks, and other stocks across the country, to rebuild. 
I am pleased that there is a provision in the proposed act to talk about rebuilding stocks. I like the habitat banking portion. Hopefully the government will be open to some amendments on that and open to some ideas on how it could be done, because a number of us have a few thoughts on that. Again, all that money is going to enforcement when there are groups, like the Miramichi Salmon Association, which I belong to, and the Atlantic Salmon Federation, that do things like create cold water refuges for Atlantic salmon so the fish can summer better and survive better than they would otherwise. We hope that projects like that could go on.
Bill C-68 is part of the Liberal plan to kill development. The Prime Minister's principal secretary, Mr. Gerald Butts, once said: “The real alternative is not an alternative route, it's an alternative economy. We don't think there ought to be a carbon-based energy industry by the middle of the century.” I am sure the thousands and thousands of middle-class Canadians who work in the energy industry will be very disappointed to know that this is the thinking in the Prime Minister's Office. The ultimate agenda is to severely restrict Canada's energy industry.
I want to quote the Canadian Electricity Association. It is headed by the hon. Sergio Marchi, who said:
 In practical terms, this means that virtually any action, without prior authorization, could be construed as being in contravention of this Act. Consequently, the reinstatement of these measures will result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities, and unduly delay and/or discourage investment in energy projects that directly support Canada's clean growth agenda and realize its climate change objectives. 
Of course, the other shoe to drop is how investment is leaving Canada. Suncor CEO Steve Williams said, in a headline that reported what Suncor's activities will be, “Suncor to shun major new projects amid Canada's 'difficult' regulatory environment”.
I had the honour of working in the oil sands in 2009-10. I lived in a camp for an oil sands project. There were people from all walks of life. People talk about the industry as if it were some kind of bad word. The industry is workers and people. There was a young dad saving for his child's education, a young couple saving for a down payment on a house, and a senior couple saving for a dignified retirement. These are the kinds of people who work in the energy industry. These are the kinds of people who will be hurt by this excessive regulatory process that is killing energy and natural resources jobs across the country. I am afraid the new Fisheries Act is just part of that, so I will be unable to support it. 
Dominic LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, this is an important discussion for the House to have. I look forward to hearing from many colleagues on this important debate and to working with colleagues in the Senate and our colleagues on the House of Commons standing committee.
It will not surprise members that I do not necessarily share the pessimistic view my colleague advanced on these improvements and the strengthening of the Fisheries Act. Farmers, small community work projects, and small municipalities across the country, many in constituencies like mine and those of colleagues in the House of Commons, have told us of the importance of being in compliance with the Fisheries Act. 
Canadians want to know that the practices they are undertaking are not harming, altering, or damaging fish or fish habitat. However, there was a reasonable sense in the past that perhaps the burden had become such that people did not know if they were in compliance or what their obligations were. We think that one way to answer the very real concerns of people in the agricultural community, for example, is to have these codes of practice. If one followed a code of practice, it would be well understood that one was in compliance with the act.
 I am wondering if my colleague would offer a view on whether he supports the strengthening of the owner-operator and fleet separation policies in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, which are important for the jobs he talked about earlier of middle-class Canadians.
Robert Sopuck: Madam Speaker, coming from the Prairies, I feel very inadequate discussing marine fisheries. 
I would like to focus on the minister's comments about codes of practice. I like codes of practice a lot. As a regional fisheries biologist up at The Pas, I saw some horrific examples of culverts that were placed too high on logging roads. People just dropped culverts in. 
I do not want the minister to misconstrue anything I have said as meaning that I do not care about fish habitat. I have been involved with monitoring fish habitat for a long time. To my point about culverts in fish-bearing streams, there could be a code of practice that the bottom of a culvert is below the stream bed, where the water velocities are good. I would welcome that approach of codes of practice and standards.
 However, we do not need the fish cops coming around every second week asking what is going on, because the level of uncertainty that creates causes great difficulties. 
I would suspect that the industry would welcome standards and codes of practice as well. I would be pleased to work with the minister and the department to help develop codes of practice for some aspects of fisheries management.
Fin Donnelly: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my colleague from Manitoba. We were on the fisheries and oceans standing committee for a number of years, until his recent departure.
As we know, the Fisheries Act does not address salmon aquaculture and the dual mandate it shares. I wonder if my colleague could comment on how, if the industry were to modernize and move to a new technology, such as closed containment, which is the leading technology in the world, RAS, that would affect the Prairies. For instance, could the Prairies be a player in that type of industry if it were to modernize?
Robert Sopuck: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. I very much appreciate working with him on areas of fish conservation. His knowledge is almost unsurpassed.
I have actually done a little informal study myself on the potential of closed containment aquaculture in the Prairies in Canada, and it is really quite significant. For example, Manitoba has groundwater resources that the rest of the world simply does not have. We have access to markets in the U.S. Midwest. I am not going to comment on the environmental conservation aspects of marine net-pen aquaculture. I just know that an expansion of closed containment aquaculture in inland areas could have real potential for rural economic development. That is something I will be following up on over the next little while.
Erin O'Toole: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the MP for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa. There is perhaps nobody in this House who has his track record personally and in knowledge of conservation. I have learned a lot from the member.
 He referenced the recreational fisheries community partnership program, which was an initiative of the Harper government that I saw the benefit of, in my riding of Durham, in the streams and in and around Lake Ontario. The changes the minister has introduced today, contrasted with the approach of the former Conservative government, show the philosophical differences: an Ottawa-knows-best, paternalistic, office-tower mentality from Ottawa; or partnering with conservation groups, recreational fisheries, and indigenous peoples on the ground that know their communities and their water sources, streams, and oceans better. 
Could the member talk about the benefits of partnerships as opposed to an Ottawa-knows-best approach, which tends to be the Liberal way?
Robert Sopuck: Madam Speaker, I am a fly fisherman. We fly fishermen say that fly fishing it is not a matter of life and death; it is more important than that. As avid anglers, we have a passion for conservation. Few feelings are as good as looking at a degraded stream, or a river that is dirty, filthy, and full of debris, or a lakeshore where the trees have fallen in, or degrading fish habitat and rolling up our sleeves, getting in there, and fixing the problems. Humans are capable of some great things in conservation. Our angling groups are not only knowledgeable, they know fishery science well. They are keen, they are motivated, and they want to see the world a better place.
 Our recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program provided some means to catalyze that kind of action by Canada's angling groups. Some two million square metres of spawning habitat and about 200 kilometres of river were improved. I go back to the project in the Miramichi where springs were dug out to cool the water down and improve summering habitat for Atlantic salmon.
 I talked to the proponents of those projects. The deep satisfaction that one gets from helping nature out in a very gentle way cannot be overestimated. I know members of the DFO staff liked being part of this program. Instead of sending emails to each other, they were out there with client groups doing good and positive conservation work. That is the Conservative approach.
Elizabeth May: Madam Speaker, I remember clearly the debates that we used to have here as Bill C-38, the omnibus budget bill of spring 2012, barrelled toward us.
 It was interesting to hear the member reference Tom Siddon in his speech. I recall clearly when the former fisheries minister Tom Siddon, Progressive Conservative, joined with former fisheries minister John Fraser, also Conservative, as well as two former Liberal fisheries ministers, David Anderson and Herb Dhaliwal, and condemned what Harper was doing to the Fisheries Act. In fact, Tom Siddon was quoted in The Globe as saying, “They are totally watering down and emasculating the Fisheries Act...They are really taking the guts out of the Fisheries Act...”
It is the first chance I have to take the floor on this debate. I want to thank the Minister of Fisheries from the bottom of my heart for restoring lost protections, restoring habitat, and putting a focus back on fish and its habitat, as the Fisheries Act must do.
 How did the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa end up so far away from the great Conservative fisheries ministers of the past?
Robert Sopuck: Madam Speaker, when I refer to the previous prime minister, I say prime minister Stephen Harper because I deeply respected him and his government. I would recommend that the member do so also.
I, as an elected official and a rural resident even before I became an elected official, saw the problems of the old Fisheries Act. Municipalities were forced into a compliance mode that cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars for very little benefit to fisheries.
 The issues across the wide swath of Canada are very different than on the coasts. Habitat definition under the old act meant that all of Canada was considered fisheries habitat. I quoted from the farm community, the leader of Canada's largest farm organization.
 The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands may want to put farmers in rural communities out of business, and the way she operates it looks like that is what she wants to do. However, members on this side of the House and this member of Parliament care deeply about the future and fate of rural communities. By the way, I might add that the conservation work that is done by farmers, ranchers, and hunters and trappers in my constituency and my communities is second to none. I would stack that up against any that she would ever do.
Fin Donnelly: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in favour of Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence.
I would like to point out at the onset that we welcome the legislation to restore HADD, harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, to the act. We believe the Liberals should have done this immediately following the last federal election. There is no excuse for waiting.
Back in 2012, when the Conservative government gutted habitat protection from the act, 600 scientists and four former fisheries ministers, including two Conservatives, wrote to the government, stating that the changes in the act “would be a most unwise action, which would jeopardize many important fish stocks and the lakes, estuaries and rivers that support them.” They were right.
 Over the past six years since these changes, the number of charges relating to a violation of the new section 35 under the weakened Fisheries Act legislation was zero. That means since 2012, there have been no charges. This, despite the fact that according to documents obtained by the Vancouver Sun in 2016, there were almost 1,900 complaints.
The vague language in the Conservative bill made it impossible to prove that a project would kill fish. Once habitat protections were restored to the act, we believed a thorough review to improve and modernize the Fisheries Act would engage Canadians, would be based on science, indigenous, and community knowledge, and the precautionary principle would have been undertaken, immediately after the 2015 election. That would have been the responsible thing to do, but here we are today, two years later, and finally we have this legislation.
 The Fisheries Act is the key federal law for fish habitat protection and one of the key laws for marine biodiversity, and is an essential part of Canada's environmental safety net.
When announcing this legislation, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard said that he was open to amendments that would strengthen the bill. Therefore, we will be proposing amendments for consideration.
In Bill C-68, the definition of fish habitat is improved by referring to the water fish need for survival. However, the proposed amendments do not include explicit legal protection for environmental flows, the amount and type of water needed for fish and aquatic ecosystems to flourish.
What are environmental flows? The Brisbane Declaration provides the most widely accepted and applied definition. It says, “Environmental flows describe the quantity, timing, and quality of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihoods and well-being that depend on these ecosystems.” Another document, which discussed the Brisbane Declaration, stated, “environmental flows are essential for providing both direct and indirect benefits on which current and future generations rely.”
We heard from Linda Nowlan of West Coast Environmental Law about the importance of protecting environmental flows at fisheries committee. She testified:
 ....the act must protect key elements of fish habitat, including environmental flows. The Fisheries Act should provide a legally binding national flow standard to conserve the quantity, timing, and quality of water flows, also known as environmental flows. 
 CSAS scientists point to this issue as a deficiency in the current regime and say that a national standard is needed. The act should define conditions of flow alteration that constitute HADD based on science advice from the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat and used by DFO. Our brief contains more information on that. These are key changes, and if enacted, they will demonstrate the government's commitment to modernize the act. 
I certainly agree with her, and on this would encourage the government to review West Coast Environmental Law Association's brief, “Habitat 2.0: A New Approach to Canada's Fisheries Act”, which includes an entire section on the importance of environmental flows.
One of the greatest disappointments of the legislation is that it would not remove the promotion of unsafe salmon farming practices and farmed salmon as a product from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans mandate, which in turn would lower impacts to wild salmon.
The government should be commended, however, for its commitment to the precautionary principle but it needs to show it with action.
 The precautionary principle recognizes that in the absence of scientific certainty, conservation measures can and should be taken when there is a lack of knowledge of a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the environment and/or resources using the best available information. Under this principle, the trigger for government action to protect wild salmon is for science to demonstrate the existence of more than a minimal risk.
In my province of British Columbia, the evidence has been piling up. Graphic videos have surfaced of virus-laden bloody discharge from farmed salmon processors spewing directly into the ocean, where wild salmon migrate, blood which has been confirmed to be infected with the highly infectious virus piscine reovirus, or PRV.
 CTV's W5 covered first nations' occupation of open-net salmon farms on the west coast, as the minister knows. It showed footage that contained graphic images of deformed farmed salmon and spoke about the disastrous effects of spreading disease, which, on an industrial scale, has an impact on our wild salmon population. 
The documentary relayed the struggle of environmental activists to remove open-net salmon farms from wild salmon migration routes, highlighted how the farms were spreading dangerous viruses like PRV to wild salmon, and how their expansion had correlated to the dramatic decline of B.C.'s wild salmon fishery. Further, the documentary showed how the salmon farm industry colluded with government to deny what DFO had already confirmed, and that is that PRV is present in farmed salmon and is spreading to wild salmon. 
In British Columbia, Gary Marty, the head scientist-veterinarian in charge of testing for disease also co-authors industry-boosting papers with Marine Harvest, the largest player in the B.C. industry.
 Clearly, the federal government is in conflict because the department's mandate contains a provision to promote the salmon aquaculture industry. This goes against the Cohen Commission recommendations, specifically recommendation 3, which says, “The Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ mandate the promotion of salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product.” 
In the W5 documentary, the minister said that the government was committed to not expanding the industry until the science was settled. Even the department's own scientists have shown PRV and HSMI have entered the wild in the Pacific Ocean. How much more risk do we need to demonstrate before it takes action? Clearly, this industry presents more than a minimal risk. It is time to get these diseased-ridden farms off of the wild salmon migration routes.
Last week, I was copied on a letter to the Prime Minister from Chief Ernest Alfred of the 'Namgis First Nation. He wants the Prime Minister to know why they walked out of his town hall meeting in Nanaimo. It is an important message that everyone in government needs to hear. I would like to read it onto the record. It states:
 Open letter to the Government of Canada 
 Dear Mr. [Prime Minister], 
 I've been asked to provide an explanation as to why our People walked out of the Town Hall in Nanaimo. Important statements needed to be made to your Government, and on behalf of our People, I'd like to strongly express our total frustration for not getting the chance to address our serious concerns. 
 Representatives of numerous First Nations can be clearly seen seated in front of the giant Canadian flag. I am dressed in a Peace Dance Headdress. One that we use to show our peaceful welcome, and resolve. I am also wearing a woven cedar bark tunic used in war. My peace headdress was quickly removed after we left the building. A symbolic act to show the total lack of respect being shown our Nations. In our territorial waters off the Broughton Archipelago, war has been declared against us, and the livelihoods of our coastal People. 
 168 days ago, we started Occupations on the fish farms in our territories. Our mission has been to peacefully record, report and protest the illegal practices in our waters. This mission is not a new one. Our People have been demanding the removal of these feedlots for over 30 years. Until now, we have never had an investigation into fish farm operations in this manner before. This self-regulated industry cannot be trusted with such important information. To be very frank, we have become more than frustrated and impatient. During the last 168 days, we've seen Fisheries Officers only twice. There is no problem with Piscine Reovirus, and that is because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been trying to hide it. [The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans] has teamed up with Marine Harvest and is fighting us in Court. It seems to me that the Government of Canada is attempting to reconcile with Norway but using our territory to do that. That is wrong! Our waters have never been surrendered, neither has our lands and our hereditary rights to oversee them. 
 The very status of fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago have come into serious question. A Norwegian Invasion has taken place in our waters and we have been forced to act to defend our investments in wild salmon. Eviction notices have been given, heavy RCMP involvement, arrests, B.C. Supreme Court proceedings, lost aquaculture industry status and reputation, Government reviews and investigations have had little or no influence on the reckless practices of the aquaculture industry, within our territories. In fact, the companies have restocked almost all the fish farms in our waters, against numerous warnings of serious consequences. We have had enough! 
 First Nations People, environmental groups, ecotourism organizations, and countless wild salmon economy contributors, from one end of the Province to the other, have shown us their full support and solidarity. Emails of support continue to pour in from all over the world. It seems as if British Columbia's fish farm industry has the world's attention. Meanwhile, I find it troubling, sad and embarrassing that we do not have the attention of the Federal Government of Canada. We are all saying the same thing. 
 Our wild salmon economy must be protected. The jobs that fish farms provide will still be there when the farms are moved to shore using closed containment technology. The economy that is so important to your government will return along the west coast. Fish farms do not create jobs - Fish farms have killed jobs along the coast! 
 The Federal Government must remove the open net fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago that have remained in the territories of 6 allied Nations without the consent or consultation for over 30 years. Immediate action is required if the Federal Government has any hopes of reconciliation in our territories. 
 With all due respect, stand with us! 
 Sincerely, Kwakwabalas 
 Chief Ernest Alfred 
 Swanson Island Occupation--'Namgis First Nation 
Clearly, first nations have had enough. How can a government that purports a true nation-to-nation government relationship with first nations ignore these pleas for action? It is shameful. I implore the government to listen. No more studies, no more words, it is time for action. Please meet with them.
In 2017, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans studied the Fisheries Act. The New Democratic Party of Canada submitted recommendations to be incorporated into the Fisheries Act in order to fully modernize it. We recommend that in order to advance the nation-to-nation relationship with first nations, a new modernized fisheries act should: one, recognize indigenous rights in the act; two, move beyond delegation to work with first nations as full partners in fisheries management; three, recognize first nations' right to commercial trade and barter opportunities; four, include guiding principles of reconciliation that allow for and promote consent-based shared decision-making processes, for example, co-management or co-governance with first nations, and that have the flexibility to reconcile pre-existing sovereignty and first nations jurisdictional authority; five, expand factors considered in decision-making to include principles of sustainability, including ecological integrity and cultural sustainability, indigenous law, protection of inherent aboriginal rights, and the principles found in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and finally, ensure meaningful consultation, accommodation, and a consent-seeking process with first nations to build new regulations.
I hope those recommendations can be incorporated into Bill C-68 at the committee stage. 
Another concern we have is that Bill C-68 gives the minister too much arbitrary power to authorize harmful development and industrial projects. I hope the government will consider amendments to update language in the bill to require decisions based on scientific evidence rather than the minister's opinion. Let us put science in and keep the politics out.
Martin Olszynski, an assistant professor in law at the University of Calgary, an expert in fishery law, agrees. He is quoted in DeSmog Canada as saying: 
 [T]here's an unfortunate use of "discretionary language, meaning that many components of the proposed legislation are basically up to the opinion of the minister—and requiring no specific evidence. 
 He went on to say:
 For example, there's a section about implementing measures to manage the decline of fish stocks. The newly amended legislation includes the phrase “if the Minister is of the opinion that a fish stock that has declined to its limit reference point or that is below that point would be impacted.” That's not satisfactory for some. 
In the same article, Brett Favaro, research scientist at the Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University said:
 I was hoping for a line that was not “if the minister is of the opinion that a fish stock has declined”, but “if the fish stock has declined as determined by the best available evidence then there should be measures in place aimed at rebuilding the stock.” 
I am hopeful that we will be able to clean up some of these language issues at committee.
 Bill C-68 also enacts the NDP recommendation to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on rebuilding. We recommended that in order to prioritize the protection of fish and fish habitat, a new modernized Fisheries Act should mandate rebuilding fish stocks when they have fallen below healthy levels and mandate a report annually to Parliament on the status of Canada's fish stocks and the management decisions made for stocks in critical zones.
In October 2017, Oceana Canada released a comprehensive review of the state of Canada's fisheries and the first annual assessment of how the government is managing them. The results were alarming. They revealed that Canadian fisheries are in serious trouble with only one-third of stocks considered healthy and 13% of those in critical condition. Further, 36% could not be determined due to insufficient information. 
Although the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada reported 19 Canadian marine stocks in critical condition, Oceana found 26 in its analysis using the same sources of information. At the time of the report, Dr. Robert Rangeley, director of science, Oceana Canada stated, “What's more concerning is that there are only three plans in place to rebuild these 26 dangerously depleted populations."
It is shameful that Canada lags behind international standards of sustainable fisheries management. In countries where governments are legally obligated to rebuild, fish populations have bounced back. The numbers are impressive. Mandatory rebuilding in the United States has meant that in the last 20 years, 43 stocks have been rebuilt. Those stocks now generate on average 50% more revenue than when they were overfished. 
This is the first time rebuilding of depleted fish stocks has been included in Canada's Fisheries Act; however, details on rebuilding will be in the regulations. This does concern me, but if those regulations are strong, with timelines and targets, and if they consider the impacts of climate change and species interactions, we will be on a path to success.
I will finish with a quote by Susanna Fuller from the Ecology Action Centre, who agrees. She stated:
 We will continue to advocate that the regulations require timelines and targets as well as an ecosystem approach to rebuilding, taking into account impacts of climate change and species interactions. 
I am—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I did allow for a little more time to finish the quote, and I am sure the member will be able to add to it in the question and comment period.
Questions and comments, the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Dominic LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Port Moody—Coquitlam for his comments and for the New Democratic Party's support of this legislation. 
I take the member's comments that he and his party do not think the bill is perfect. We do not pretend that it is; however, we think it is a significant improvement, and we would be happy to work with him and other colleagues in the House of Commons in the committee process, obviously, on ways to strengthen it. 
I took note of the member's comments with respect to the issue of environmental flow. He is right that the West Coast Environmental Law group has done terrific work on this. It inspired some of our thinking on this important issue. I would work happily with him and other colleagues on that important issue and on ways to strengthen it. 
I take his comments with respect to regulations as well. It is something that has to be done in a rigorous and transparent way. We would again welcome suggestions to make sure that we get that part right. 
My colleague referred to this in a question following my remarks. He is from the province of British Columbia, and I think he may have an interesting insight into how policies like owner-operator and fleet separation could in fact improve the economic security of the harvesters on the west coast. I wonder if he has suggestions on how we could take some of the benefit of these policies and see an improvement in the economic circumstances of people he and my colleagues would represent on the west coast.
Fin Donnelly: Madam Speaker, I know it is a very difficult challenge to try to bring what is now entrenched in Atlantic Canada and Quebec over to the west coast, which has a very different regime that has been developed over the years. However, I think it is done with consultation, working with the industry, working with a commitment to see things differently, and looking at how we benefit coastal communities that are impacted by modernization and changes. 
We have dramatically seen a change over the years of losing our fish processors, and so we have to find a better way to include and ensure that our coastal communities benefit. We have to look at adjacency policies and how we incorporate what has worked in Atlantic Canada and Quebec into the west coast approach, which is definitely far advanced in terms of ITQs. We also need to look at what is best and how we can incorporate best practices, obviously, with the fish unions, those who are involved in processing and with fishing, and the commercial fishing sector, and listen to how that can change.
I would implore the minister to meet with Chief Ernest Alfred, and take the content of his letter to heart.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important speech and his comments to the government which really does not listen.
I wonder if the member could comment on a statement by the Hon. Sergio Marchi from the Canadian Electricity Association. He is a previous Liberal cabinet minister. He said that Bill C-68 “represents one step forward but two steps back”. He went on to say: 
 In practical terms, this means that virtually any action, without prior authorization, could be construed as being in contravention of this Act...will result in greater uncertainties for existing and new facilities, and unduly delay and/or discourage investment in energy projects that directly support Canada’s clean growth agenda and realize its climate change objectives. 
Here we have a government that is not listening to the conservation side of things, first nations, and is not listening to the business side of things.
 I wonder if the member could comment on how much work has to be done in committee to get the bill right.
Fin Donnelly: Madam Speaker, in this instance on the Fisheries Act, I do believe that the government did listen. It heard very clearly from Canadians in the 2015 election that they wanted these environmental protections, like the Fisheries Act, restored. I believe the government did listen. 
Through the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans we provided input. In fact, the NDP provided a dissenting report. We felt that some of our recommendations did not make it into the committee's report, but many of those recommendations we found were actually in the Fisheries Act. Therefore, we do feel that the government listened to the NDP on this. We commend the government for making those changes. Our concern was that it was not implemented quickly enough, which was a promise made in the last election. 
It is clear that the Fisheries Act was gutted in 2012, and that is what Canadians spoke out on. They did not want to see that happen. The Conservative government went too far in its amendments to the Fisheries Act. Scientists and many others, including former Conservative fisheries ministers, spoke out against those changes.
Ms. Anne Minh-Thu Quach (Salaberry—Suroît, NDP): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very informative speech. It did however worry me a bit, because he mentioned that the salmon farming industry does not care that the salmon carry viruses and continue to infect other wild salmon. The industry seems to be self-regulating and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is aware of what is happening, but the government is not taking any real action.
What impact might this have on marine biodiversity, on fisheries in general, and on human health? Why has there been no intervention, as recommended in the Cohen report?
I am deeply concerned about this, and there seems to be no action from the federal government. Protecting marine biodiversity should be part of its mandate. I think that the bill is a step in that direction. I would like the hon. member to elaborate on the ins and outs.
Fin Donnelly: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec, who is a very diligent and passionate member of Parliament, and very concerned about the environment, including the impact on marine ecosystems like our fisheries. 
Obviously, salmon aquaculture on the west coast is a major concern. It was a big part of my presentation to the House. 
My colleague raised an excellent point about the department knowing about the impact of viruses and disease in our waters. We farm Atlantic salmon on the west coast in open net pens. Feces and materials associated with farms go directly into the ocean. As farmers know, disease is directly related to waste management, and how we deal with that waste and how we contain disease are critical. It is even more difficult to deal with when it goes directly into the ocean. 
The department has been studying this problem. It knows that viruses and the disease exist, and it knows their impact on our fisheries. Once that waste is let out into the open ocean, it is difficult to get that genie back into the bottle. 
We need to prevent that. The Fisheries Act needs to prevent pollution and disease from entering wild fishery habitat.
Elizabeth May: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, who has been a tireless champion in fighting toxic fish factories, which is what they really are. They are not fish farms. There is nothing friendly or nice associated with them, as the word farm would imply. These facilities are found all along our coastline, and they are destroying our wild salmon, as my colleague has accurately described.
There is another aspect involved here. I want to see officials in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister turn their attention to tight regulation and ending the conflict of interest here.
I am also wondering if the hon. member has any views on the need to regulate seismic testing. Canada does not regulate seismic testing, and offshore boards have approved seismic testing in the habitat of endangered whales.
Fin Donnelly: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention by my colleague in the Green Party about not only salmon aquaculture but also our southern resident killer whales.
It is critically important that we study not only seismic activity, but ship noise and other things that impact salmon on the west coast. More science is needed so that we can protect these whales and do it right. We also have to protect their food, which is the chinook salmon that they feed on.
We have to look at more science. We have to look at the impact of fish farms on chinook and wild sockeye salmon. We also definitely need to investigate how we can avoid noise that impacts whales. 
Mr. Sean Fraser (Central Nova, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. 
I am very proud to take my spot today in the House of Commons to bring the voice of my constituents to Ottawa and speak to the proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act. There are several substantive reforms, and I would like to take the opportunity to speak about many of them. However, realistically in the time allotted, I would like to spend my time on one major issue, and that is the protection of the independent inshore fishery that is contained in the proposed revisions to the act. In particular, I would like to share some of my thoughts on the economic security that this measure would provide to rural communities like the ones I grew up in. 
Madam Speaker, I hope you will afford me a bit of latitude to provide context that I believe is very necessary to explain the significance of the bill to my constituents at home in Central Nova. 
I am from a community called Merigomish. It is a small community on the Northumberland Strait in Nova Scotia. I grew up in a family with six kids. I have five sisters. My parents were teachers. My parents stressed that we should get an education so we could bolster our careers in the future. I am happy that my sisters and I all took advantage of their advice and made that investment. That investment in time and resources is something I was very pleased and prepared to make. What I do not think I was adequately prepared for, and I would suggest the same would be true of my family members, was that on the back end of our education, when we were looking to join the workforce, we were not necessarily prepared to leave the place where we were raised to make a living. 
If I rewind the clock to a year before I made the decision to run for office at what my family was doing, I had two sisters, both professionals in the medical industry, who moved to Ontario to find work. I became a lawyer and found a job that I absolutely loved in Calgary, Alberta. I have two younger sisters who both became teachers, one of whom moved from Nova Scotia to New Brunswick to find a job at a private school. The other was raising her daughter full time while her husband flew in and out of the Middle East so he could make a living for their household. My youngest sister was finishing up her studies at StFX and has since moved to the city of Halifax to find a job with a great accounting firm there. 
If someone had asked us 10 years before what we wanted to do with our lives, I do not know that we would have had the answer, but I expect we would have said we wanted to be around home. The reality in many small towns and communities is that is not an option. I am thankful for the mobility we have as young people and professionals in Canada, but the opportunity to make a living in the community where we were raised is not a reality for far too many people. 
However, there is a glowing example of an industry that allows people from the community where I was raised to stay in the community where they grew up and make a good living there. That is the fishery. If I look at my community now and go down to the wharf in Lismore, I can find Kelly, a classmate of mine from grade 2, who is still working in the fishery today. A former baseball teammate, Ryan, is a fisherman on the Northumberland Strait as well. 
I was engaged in a back and forth with a constituent recently, whose husband is the owner and operator of a lobster fishing vessel. What she told me demonstrates the importance of the fishery to local communities. His annual expenditures, before he catches a single fish, were $82,000, and 90% of the expenses he incurred were spent in Pictou County alone, which is a small part of Nova Scotia. The remaining 10% were incurred with other businesses within the province. If fishermen are guilty of anything, it is of spending money in their own communities and supporting their neighbours, so they can stay in their communities as well.
The economic benefits of the fishery are perhaps obvious but worth stating. We now export over 100 different species in seafood alone. Last year, we had a record-setting $6.6 billion in seafood exports. We are pursuing trade deals with Europe, for example, through CETA, which has knocked down tariffs for the seafood sector, particularly shellfish, which will help drive the price up for seafood. 
There are 72,000 Canadians who make a living in the fisheries or fishing-related activities. However, it is one thing to share these stats and talk in terms of contribution to GDP and billions of dollars, but it is more difficult to ensure that the benefits of this growth accrue, not only to the wealthiest Canadians who may have some sort of a corporate interest in the fishery, but to people who are doing work on the ground or, in this case, in our waters. This is why this bill before the House of Commons is so important. It is going to help bolster the economic security not just of fishermen but of rural communities, and allow them to stay alive.
If I look at measures contained in the bill that are going to help protect the economic security of rural communities, I have a lot of hope. My hope comes not just from the words in the legislation, but from my conversations with the minister. This is a project that I have been advocating for and working on for two years. This is a project that I have been seeking advice on from local fishermen, to ensure that their voices are not just represented in the House of Commons but embedded in the legislation we are looking at today. 
Upon the passage of this bill, the minister would have the authority to consider economic, social, and cultural factors when making decisions about licensing. The minister would specifically have the authority to consider the need to protect and preserve an independent inshore fishery.
 It is incredibly important for the communities I represent that the licence-holders retain the benefit of their licence. It is incredibly important that the licence-holders are the ones who are actually fishing. 
The bill also contains measures that prohibit certain kinds of corporations from owning a fishing licence. This is not some sort of anti-corporate tirade; there is a very real danger posed to rural communities by some of the commercial relationships that exist in the fishery today. There are large corporations who have the ability to snap up a number of different licences, so to speak. What they might try to do is buy out 50 fishermen. The fishermen can still fish, but the benefits of their licence are going to come to those who have a large facility, where they can add value to the product. That can be a good thing, but over time there could be practical implications for the captain of a fishing vessel who has been supporting his family, and perhaps his parents before him were supporting their family. That captain who is making a good living today could become a minimum wage employee in the future. That does not sit well with me. 
It is one thing to take my word for it, but in speaking with my constituents, they had something to say. I would like to share a statement from the Northumberland Fishermen's Association and someone I have incredible respect for, Ronnie Heighton, who is a strong advocate not just for the fishery but for the rural economies more generally. This letter says, “It is vital to the core industry that individual fishermen be required to fish their licence personally. The fleet separation policy is crucial to ensure that those that generate an income from fishing are not a processor but instead an individual licence-holder. The importance of supporting middle-class jobs by keeping these benefits from individual fishing within our communities is essential to the local economy.” 
I thank Ronnie for sharing this information with me, for the education, and for being someone I can lean on when I need advice on how to best represent the interests of fishing communities here in the House of Commons. 
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the minister, who has been a fabulous partner to work with on this file. His father, perhaps decades before, started a project, and his son, the hon. minister, is now finishing the job. 
I am proud to see this legislation go forward, and I am proud to be a representative for my communities. I campaigned in 2015 to be a voice for my constituents in Ottawa and not the other way around. Seeing the words that my constituents have spoken to me embedded into legislation, knowing it is going to enhance the economic security of rural communities and rural coastal communities throughout Atlantic Canada, makes me extraordinarily proud to stand in this House today.
Fin Donnelly: Madam Speaker, the member spoke about the economic impact to the fishery. He also spoke about the importance of protecting a way of life that he described. As members know, Canada's fisheries industry employs more than 72,000 Canadians and exports more than $6-billion worth of seafood a year, which the member touched on. One critical thing that this act does is to rebuild fish stocks. It sets in motion the importance of ensuring that rebuilding fish stocks is included in the Fisheries Act.
We know what is critical is that there be strong regulations, with timelines and targets, that ensure these rebuilding plans will be taken seriously by the department. Will my colleague commit to ensuring that these strong regulations will follow, with timelines and targets, with these rebuilding plans?
Sean Fraser: Madam Speaker, before addressing this question, I would like to say that there is important work already happening under the government to restore fish stocks. I know of projects in my own riding to rebuild salmon populations in the West River in Sheet Harbour and the St. Mary's River in Sherbrooke.
Of course it is extraordinarily important that Canadians have faith that when we talk about rebuilding fish stocks, it is not simply an opportunity to have niceties. We have to have a process in place that they are going to have faith in. We have to have a rigorous and very transparent consultation when we are developing regulations to demonstrate that, on a timeline, we are going to be able to provide the work that we need to do to ensure that the fish are going to be there, so that the rural communities that I want to defend today have an opportunity to fish, not just today but for generations to come.
Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am actually fairly encouraged that we have legislation before us that is really going to have an impact on fish habitat going forward.
I know the Atlantic caucus and the B.C. caucus are fairly excited about the fact that we do have legislation, legislation that we have been waiting for. I wonder if my colleague could share his thoughts on the importance of bringing forward this legislation today. We know there has been a great deal of discussion amongst caucus members who want to see action on this front. We have a minister responsible who has really led the charge in ensuring that we are in fact protecting fish habitat, looking at ways we can expand protection and the quality and quantity of fish going forward.
Sean Fraser: Madam Speaker, I will take that a step further and say that the importance of the legislation is not just something that the caucuses care deeply about, but in fact something the people we represent care deeply about. 
The movement towards this legislation has been an incredible exercise in democracy. What I have seen in our Atlantic caucus is people speaking passionately about conversations they have actually had with constituents, who said, on December 5, 2012, that they were disheartened to see that all the protections afforded for Canadian rivers, lakes, and waterways had been reduced to a limited number. I believe the number was 159 that were on the schedule to be protected.
When I see the measures restoring lost protections that were erased in a 2012 omnibus budget bill, I know our Atlantic caucus colleagues are thrilled because they have been listened to, but more importantly because we are able to stand here, take our place, and bring the voices of our constituents to the House of Commons.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Madam Speaker, does my colleague think that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should not have too much discretionary power and should instead make decisions based on facts and science? 
In the previous Parliament, we had problems when the government muzzled scientists. Now, this government is saying that it is important to make science-based decisions, but there is nothing in the wording of the bill to say that the decisions must be based on science. Rather, the bill says that the minister may make decisions based on his own opinion. I think this should be fixed.
What does my colleague think?
Sean Fraser: Madam Speaker, this is extraordinarily important. The measures that the minister takes should be based on facts, science, and evidence in all cases.
I am of the view that discretion in certain aspects of decision-making can be a positive thing, so long as the public has faith that the decisions being made when that discretion is exercised are done so in a very public and transparent way. It cannot be done to cater to some sort of private interest. It has to be done in the public interest.
Of course when science is available, we should use it for the decision-making process, but when there is a unique, particularly social or economic concern, discretion is not always a bad thing.
Mr. Jati Sidhu (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am proud to support the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act, which would restore lost protections and modernize safeguards to protect fish and fish habitat. The proposed amendments are the result of extensive consultations over the past two years. Canadians have spoken, this government has listened, and now we are acting.
 I would like to review the elements of the proposed act that address monitoring and enforcement, two areas that were seriously affected after the previous changes in 2012 and 2013. I will begin with the area of monitoring. 
Throughout consultations for the proposed amendments, indigenous groups and stakeholders expressed interest in better monitoring on several levels. For example, they want to see increased reporting and transparency regarding the habitat protection provisions of the act that are being reintroduced. I am pleased to say that the government has responded to this call for action. 
In line with our commitment to transparency, the act would allow the development of an online registry. This would provide information on permit and authorization decisions, as well as codes of practice and standards. Significantly, the registry would also improve the department's ability to monitor compliance with the act. Indigenous peoples and stakeholders also want to see clear standards for how proponents monitor the impacts of a project on fish and fish habitat. The proposed amendments would address these concerns by making monitoring information more accessible via the public registry. 
Let me turn now to the question of improved enforcement. As we know, fishery officers are responsible for ensuring compliance with all aspects of the Fisheries Act, including provisions to protect fish and their habitats. The Fisheries Act, in 2012, reduced habitat protections, and it is no surprise that habitat-related enforcement dropped by 80% between 2004 and 2016. The proposed Fisheries Act before the House today would go beyond restoring lost protections. It would also strengthen and modernize the enforcement powers of fishery officers. I would like to highlight the specific changes. 
Throughout consultations and public engagement sessions for this bill, Canadians have been very clear that they want more fishery officers on patrol and more offenders caught and held accountable. I am pleased to say that amendments are proposed to clarify, strengthen, and modernize enforcement of the act. For example, fishery officers would be granted three new powers. 
First, they could require that any vessel or vehicle be stopped and moved to a place that is suitable for inspection. This would enable an officer to order a vessel back to port or order a vehicle to a safe inspection site. Second, fishery officers could exercise their powers in relation to any Canadian fishing vessels in the waters and territories of other countries, provided the countries agree. Third, fishery officers would not be liable for contraventions of the act if done in the performance of their duties, and this exemption from liability would also apply to any person accompanying them. 
Other amendments under the new act would modernize the powers of courts with four new elements. First, certificates signed by an analyst could be used in court as evidence that the substance, product, or fish has been analyzed or tested by an analyst; as evidence of the results of those tests; and as evidence of the accuracy of instruments used by fishery officers. Second, courts could authorize the forfeiture of illegal fishing gear found in Canadian fisheries waters. Third, courts could authorize further extension of seizures beyond the initial 90-day period, and fourth, courts could authorize forfeiture of fish or other things that would be illegal to possess, even if no charges were laid.
 Another enforcement-related amendment would provide authority for the minister to suspend or cancel a licence where a licence holder is in default of payment of a fine related to a fisheries violation. 
Not all offenders should end up in the courts, which can be costly for all parties and time-consuming. Amendments would enable the use of alternative measures agreements. These agreements focus on problem solving and addressing the root cause of the contravention. They are a cost-effective alternative to the criminal justice system and have been shown to reduce relapse. The proposed amendments would extend the use of alternative measures for some offences related to fish and fish habitat when the offender has recognized his or her responsibility.
 To sum up, the proposed Fisheries Act would introduce measures to strengthen monitoring and to modernize safeguards for fish and fish habitats. The department has also identified the need for more strategic planning of monitoring activities. With respect to enforcement, the amendments would strengthen and modernize the enforcement powers of fishery officers. It would give the courts new powers, while expanding the use of alternative measures.
 I am proud to get behind this bill. These measures would restore lost protections and modernize our approach to safeguarding our fisheries. At the same time, they would go a long way to restoring public faith in the department's conservation and restoration efforts.
 I call on all hon. members to support the proposed amendments and give it speedy passage through the House.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, according to the Cohen Commission's third recommendation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is violating its mandate and should stop promoting salmon farming as an industry, since viruses are contaminating the fish, which then contaminate wild salmon, which then contaminate the entire food chain and destroy marine biodiversity.
Does my colleague agree that promoting this industry should not be part of Fisheries and Oceans Canada's mandate, since the industry contaminates our fish stocks?
Jati Sidhu: Mr. Speaker, one thing we need to understand is that we have consulted Canadians on all aspects of change. There are 2,063 Canadians who registered online, and almost 5,500 who completed an e-questionnaire. Therefore, I am very confident that the changes with respect to the concern the member brought up have been taken into consideration.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the heart of this, the government is attempting to repair the damaged legislation that was brought forward by the previous government. There is a real strong sense of our environmental responsibilities, in particular as it relates to our fisheries and oceans in this matter.
Could the member expand on where we were with the previous government and what it did in 2012 compared to where we are now, and exactly what that will do to further strengthen our commitment to the environment?
Jati Sidhu: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to expand on this.
Our government promised to not just return to the previous version of the Fisheries Act but to make the law even better than before. Our government is delivering on its important promise made to Canadians.
We are introducing the amendment to the Fisheries Act, which when passed, will restore and protect our fish and fish habitat. This was lost under the previous Conservative government. The proposed changes to the Fisheries Act will contribute to the advancing of reconciliation with first nations, Métis, and Inuit people, and a renewed nation-to-nation relationship, which is a priority for our government. These amendments would make it requirement to consider and protect the indigenous traditional knowledge when making certain decisions under the Fisheries Act.
Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.
 First, I would like to highlight a comment made by my colleague from the Lower Mainland. He said that they wanted to make the act even better than it was before. I agree with him. It was pretty good. Back in 2012, the changes we made under our previous government were substantive.
 Being the parliamentary outdoor caucus co-chair, we deal a lot with fishing, specifically recreational fishing. If people were lucky enough to get out last weekend to do some ice fishing, good for them. I did not have time. However, a lot of the time we have as families together, we to do exactly that.
However, it always seems a little disingenuous of the Liberals across the way when they cannot just say that they are doing something good for fisheries or they are doing something positive in Bill C-68 without giving us a shot. I would like to argue about that and defend our record.
 We started a very substantive program, the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. We provided millions of dollars to basically local organizations to help people who were interested in seeing their own rivers and tributaries have a sustainable fishery for recreational fishers.
An article from 2015, which references the OFAH, a non-partisan group, states:
 ...the largest the largest non-profit charitable fish and wildlife conservation organization in Ontario, applauds the federal government’s decision to substantially increase the funding to the highly successful Recreational Fisheries Conservation Partnership Program by providing an additional $15 million over two years. 
When it mentions the federal government, it is referring to the Conservative government. This is just one announcement of many. The article goes on to say, “Ours was one of 96 projects from across Canada funded in the first year of the program.” We are talking about millions of dollars.
Some people think that just the odd person goes out and fishes on a weekend, but recreational fishing generates over $8 billion in annual economic activity. Frankly, we like the heritage part of it. Personally, I like going out to fish. However, the economic activity is something to support, and that is what we did in the previous government.
For the Liberals to say that Bill C-68 is a great saviour of recreational fishing in Canada is a stretch. A lot was done before. Can a lot be done? Absolutely. We are all concerned about the numbers of fish we see in certain tributaries off the west coast and east coast, and we want to do all we can. The Conservatives and Liberals can agree upon that. To say that the previous government did nothing is not true.
I want to speak a little about Bill C-68 and what it seeks to do. This is where the previous government had it right.
 The Liberals always seem to want to increase bureaucracy. They are talking about funding different groups to study what is normally done by volunteers right now. A group in Valemount does a great job of establishing salmon and fish habitat in the rivers and doing what it can to build fish ladders, etc. A lot of it is done by volunteers. It is done by local people who are interested in fishing or who just want to see a healthy fish habitat in their local community of Valemount. 
However, the Liberal government is now seeking to dump a bunch of money into funding different target and study groups, spending money on what is already being done by volunteers today. Again, I would question its logic of funding things that work quite well on their own right now, being driven by volunteers. Volunteers are a good thing. They are there because they are interested and want to make our rivers and streams a better place for fish. Again, why are the Liberals throwing more money at a situation, which does not always make it better? 
We see a number of challenges with returning stocks, depending on the rivers. We see efforts needing to be made. With Bill C-68, the Liberal government is maybe trying to do something that is better, but building a bigger bureaucracy will not help one fish in one river, especially in my home province of British Columbia.
We support a strong conservation effort generally. I know the member who will speak after me is an avid fisherman. Most of our speakers grab a rod and reel, so we really do care about preserving the numbers, especially the returning fish. We absolutely support any efforts that would substantively increase the numbers returning and substantially help recreational fishers access particular lands.
 One item of concern, which is not really related to Bill C-68 but does relate to recreational fishing in Canada, is marine protection areas that the current government is seeking to challenge for recreational fishers in the province of B.C.
 The Liberals say that they are for fisheries, et cetera, but fisheries are meant to be used by the people. Any kind of restriction of that fishery is a concern for Conservative members on this side of the House. We are definitely concerned for the long-term future of recreational fishing, the history that it brings, and all the great experience families have. We fished a couple of years ago with my kids and they all caught a fish. It was a great experience. It was one of those memorable moments of our summer of 2016.
I wish the government would spend money where money is well-received, which is literally by the fish in streams. Back in the mid-1990s, I had the pleasure to work as a carpenter on a fish ladder in a fish creek area to the north of where I live. I saw the effort that went into that by people who cared about the stream and having a sustainable fishery. A lot of that effort was done by people who were volunteering and doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, not just for a paycheque.
The government should look at what works in the current system with conservation groups in British Columbia, my home province, in Atlantic Canada, and across the Prairies. In whatever province, there are people who like to fish. I would look at what is already working. The government should do more of that as opposed to trying to change the whole regime. I do not think that is a great way to spend money and it is not a great way to have a sustained fishery in our country.
 The goal for everybody in here is to try to achieve a sustainable fishery so our kids, our grandkids, and our great-grandkids can fish well into the future. I know that is the goal of our members and I know it is the goal of some across the way. Again, we want to ensure that when the government spends taxpayer dollars, it spends them wisely, not just throwing dollars at a problem expecting them to stick, and not fix it.
Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment with respect to fishing with his family and children. My son and our next door neighbour pick up their fishing rods, walk down the street to the lake, and fish in the summertime as well. This legislation is exactly about that. It is about protecting the ability to do that into future. Sometimes we need regulation around different activities so we can ensure that future generations, our children, grandchildren, and their children, can continue this activity that so many of us have come to love.
Could the member comment on whether some legislation and regulations are necessary to ensure we have the ability to continue to do this into the future?
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member's kids fish. That is a great example of why we want to keep fishing a viable thing in Canada and ensure we can have it for our future generations.
There is a key part to this conversation on Bill C-68 and that this great legislation will be a fix-all of all the problems. I have been reading multiple articles, but one article said that it was not a matter of legislation; it was a matter of implementation. If we need to fix our implementation to ensure that better results will ensue, we need to look a bit closer at what that would look like, rather than throw money at a completely different group, do something completely different, expecting to have a great result. Implementation is the issue here and we need to get to the bottom of how to implement a good process in Canada.
Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member's contribution to this debate, and also his work as the B.C. caucus chair.
The member raised a very good point that regulations are important but measures have to be there that send a signal to the wider audience, particularly in British Columbia, that they are important and that the government is thinking of them.
The government gave $400 million, in last year's budget, to the east coast for innovation in aquaculture and for innovations in fishing off the shore of the east coast. In British Columbia, what did it do? It tried to cancel a popular salmon process fund to restock our rivers and streams with salmon.
First, does the member believe that the government is treating British Columbia, on the issues of fisheries, fairly? Second, does he think this legislation does anything to change the image that I have in my mind?
Bob Zimmer: Mr. Speaker, again, the previous government, which the member was a part of, as was I, as members of the British Columbia caucus, saw great rollouts in the salmon foundation and other really great initiatives.
Then we see where politics enters the fray. When we have something that is understood to work, where we have volunteers on the ground making this thing work in British Columbia, Bill C-68 and the rationale behind Bill C-68 should be to fund it some more, because it is going to work so let us keep it going. We have seen the opposite happen with the Liberal government retracting funding for things that do work. It is a strange thing that is hard for British Columbians in general to understand. 
Does the current government understand what recreational fishing is, and not just recreational fishing but preserving fish, and not so that nobody can ever fish again? Again, we are getting concerned with marine protected areas that actually protect areas from people fishing. That is not what our goal should be. Our goal should be to protect the fish so we can go fishing, not the opposite.
Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on Bill C-68 today to talk about the changes to the Fisheries Act.
People are probably wondering why a prairie boy from Manitoba is getting up to talk about fisheries. I want to remind everyone here that I am the proud representative of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, which is home to Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba, the Winnipeg River, Lake St. Martin, and the communities around them.
I represent over 1,000 commercial fishers, fishing families that make their living off that freshwater fishery. Lake Winnipeg is a three-season fishery. Fishers are on the ice in the winter, spring, and fall. Those families depend on the fishery. There are 23 small craft harbours on Lake Winnipeg alone. This is a great natural resource that deserves protection.
That is why Conservatives, I in particular, support protecting fish habitat and we support protecting the commercial fishery and the recreational fishery, which are also important to my riding. People come from all over the world to enjoy catching trophy walleye and northern pike. Some of the best channel catfishing in the world takes place in the north Red River in my riding. We are quite proud of the area. It is a fishery that we want to protect.
I have grave concerns with what the Liberal government is proposing. The Liberals have gone back to the future, to the old days when it was going to use a stick to hammer users of the land, hammer communities, to hammer down and whack-a-mole, so to say, any farmer, any municipality that was trying to do any improvement or developments. 
The Liberals are also going to penalize clean energy like hydroelectric power. In my almost 15 years as a parliamentarian we have been dealing with the impact on protected fish habitat of doing hydroelectric generation in the development of those dams and the impact of federal regulations on them.
It is a stick here rather than a carrot. When the Conservatives were in government, we were proud to work with stakeholders, recreational fishers and commercial fishers. We were proud to work alongside municipalities to adopt best practices and to provide the enhancement dollars needed to protect fish habitat. We saw the greatest benefits using a carrot rather than a stick to reward good behaviour, to enhance fishery protection, and to protect natural ecosystems. That generated results.
The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard announced $284 million for enforcement, for putting more fisheries and oceans inspectors out across the Prairies to tell municipalities they cannot do this, to stop farmers from draining their flooded fields, and to try to protect some fish habitat in the bottom of a ditch.
That did not work back in the nineties. It did not work in the early 2000s, and that is why the Conservative government put those enforcement officers where they were needed the most, where we saw overfishing, where we saw destruction of habitat, especially in British Columbia, where they enforced the legislation the way it should have been enforced, not by harassing municipalities, farmers, and other resource users.
We do not need more bureaucratic red tape. What we need is a government that understands the needs of all stakeholders and that wants to work together collaboratively to provide the best habitat and the best environment to protect our fishery.
The Liberals may have introduced more dollars for bureaucratic red tape but they cut spending from existing habitat protection programs. The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa and others in our caucus worked long and hard to bring about the recreational fish habitat protection program, a program that provided dollars to little wildlife organizations to protect habitat, mainly for angling, and a lot of it happened in our little lakes and estuaries along the bigger waterways. That program benefited both the commercial fishery and the aboriginal fishery. They were able to capitalize on the increased fish stocks and the habitat protection that happened, the natural groins going into our lakes, rivers, and oceans that allow that nutrient load to be soaked up through the marshlands and the swamp.
The Liberal government killed the wetland conservation program, which was really important, not just from the standpoint of fish habitat protection and protecting the habitat for upland game birds and wetland game birds like geese, ducks, and prairie chickens, but it also provided dollars to encourage land-use owners to keep those wetlands, because they are not just the kidneys but the main reciprocals for aquifers across this country, to feed the groundwater and build it up. It is shameful that the government is virtue signalling, telling people it is going to do more to protect fish habitat, when, in actuality, it has killed programs, reduced the dollars available to enhance and protect fish habitat, and will be spending more taxpayers' dollars on more red tape and bureaucracy.
There would be regulations, but we do not know what those regulations are going to look like yet. We have a case where the government is going to place more rules and regulations on municipalities, rural communities, first nations, and resource users, including clean energy producers like hydroelectric power, and in Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, rather than adopt best practices. That is what Conservatives encouraged when we were in government. If municipalities were going to have to clean ditches, they would be told this is the time of year to do it and this is how to do it. They did not have to file a whole bunch of paperwork and hire engineers or environmental consultants to do these environmental assessments to get through the DFO checklist.
We also know that there are going to be more costs on municipalities. Every project they have to do would require them to do duplicative work and provide background documentation to the federal and provincial governments. There is no clarity in the bill as to how to get rid of the redundancy and all of the costs that are going to be borne by the municipalities, cash-strapped municipalities trying to serve their ratepayers.
I am an agriculture producer and my son-in-law is a grain farmer and one of the greatest things we deal with in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is flooding, excess precipitation, whether it is from snow runoff, excessive rain, or downstream flooding coming down the Red and Assiniboine Rivers from the United States and western Canada. We are at the bottom of the Lake Winnipeg basin, so we have to deal with this excess moisture. Farmers have to have the ability to drain their lands, do flood mitigation, and stop the harm and damage that happens. 
We lived through this in the 1990s under the Chrétien government. When farmers tried to dig drains to draw the excess moisture away from their fields, which was drowning their crops and livelihoods and that could possibly bankrupt them, DFO was there to hammer them over the head with a big stick telling them they could not do it. They were fined and penalized and their projects were stopped. We have to adopt best practices to ensure that people can live on the land. I am scared that this is just another Liberal policy that is anti-farmer and anti-rural municipalities. 
Finally, fishers have not asked for these changes. We already know that under the old system, we saw no results, the system the Liberals had back in the 1990s and early 2000s. We are going back to the future, where this is not resolved. My friend just said that there are no metrics on how to manage the actual result. If there are no results, then how would this benefit commercial fishers? How would this benefit aboriginal fishers and commercial fishers who enjoy angling and our waterways?
I ask the government to look at this in detail to ensure that it is not being overly bureaucratic, that it is not adding more red tape to an already very onerous system, and to ensure that rural Canadians and communities, whether they be aboriginal, agriculture producers, or fishers, are all able to benefit from this, and that extra costs are not being layered upon municipalities and provincial governments, so there can be drainage, flood mitigation, and flood protection unhampered by an overzealous federal government.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, in good part the legislation we have before us today reflects some of the changes that were required because of the previous administration's changes that it brought in, I believe within budget legislation. We are looking at restoring the lost protection, for example, to fish habitat. The bill also provides that the government modernize the legislation a little more by bringing in some additional protections. Along with this, there are a substantial amount of financial resources that would be made available.
 Looking at the importance of the industry, not only for today but into the future, I wonder if my colleague would not agree that investing in and protecting fish habitat is the right thing to do. My friend and colleague talked about how wonderful the industry is in our home province of Manitoba, and I concur. There is so much potential, but there is an expectation that we do what we can in terms of the protection of habitat, as an example. This proposed legislation is going to go a long way in giving the power to the minister to take such actions, so that in the long run we will have a healthier fish stock and healthier environment.
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member is misinformed. There is no call for this proposed legislation. It will not increase protection. All it would do is increase regulatory barriers. All it would do is provide more enforcement and more Fisheries and Oceans officers running around the province of Manitoba, and anywhere else in this country, stopping farmers, fishers, and industry from moving ahead.
The big problem is that the Liberals do not seem to understand that we had the right mechanisms in place already. They might want to virtue signal that they are trying to do something to protect fish habitat and for environmental purposes, but they are undermining rural communities, industry, and fishers. They have been working so hard for so long to enhance habitat to make sure we protect our wetlands and that we increase fish stocks. 
By working in a collaborative approach, we can do more in adapting best practices to ensure that projects such as building new ditches, repairing a bridge, or putting in place a new culvert are done without having to go through all the red tape that the Liberals want to force upon our municipalities and our citizens. 
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, as a former Penticton city councillor, I have experienced this first-hand. There was a developer who put aside tens of thousands of dollars to have access through a new stairway to Campbell Mountain, which was highly desired by the area. Our planners asked for clarification from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. However, the site was within a certain proximity to a creek. The reason we were told we could not go ahead was because there was a body of water adjacent to the proposed stairs. It was an old water hole of a golf course. Therefore, when the member cites that the people in Ottawa or in far-reaching areas are pushing buttons and demanding that people do something in the rural areas, he is exactly right.
In my area of British Columbia, I have met with stakeholders. They are specifically asking for action on the Cohen commission and not for this kind of legislation. Does the member agree that the government should be more focused on the priorities of stakeholders, whether it be in my area or his own?
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, as a municipal councillor, the member has lived through the horrors, the cost, and the headaches of having to deal with DFO over things as ridiculous as a water hole on a golf course. I experienced that myself in my riding, where farmers who were flooded all of a sudden had carp swimming out of Lake Manitoba across their fields. Now, is that fish habitat? It has fish on it. The legislation would give power to the government to say that it is fish habitat and it cannot be touched. 
We have white mullet, which we call sucker fish back home, that swim up the ditches every spring in the runoff to spawn. Does that stop the cleaning out of the ditch in the fall when there are no fish in it? I do not think it should, but the powers given to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans would give him the type of capability to stop regular planning and resource use on the prairies. 
Ms. Karen Ludwig (New Brunswick Southwest, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.
It is a privilege for me to speak in the House on two important elements of the proposed Fisheries Act amendments. Both of these new elements would support conservation of marine biodiversity, and address threats to the conservation and protection of our marine resources and the proper management and control of our fisheries in a nimble and flexible way. 
To develop our proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act, we closely considered recommendations from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, and we consulted broadly with Canadians, partners, indigenous groups, and stakeholders. In parallel to this important work, we have been advancing efforts to achieve Canada's marine conservation targets, surpassing our government's commitment to protecting 5% of our marine areas by 2017, and moving forward to protect 10% by 2010. 
The first of the new proposals under the amended Fisheries Act that I will speak about today responds directly to a need that we identified as part of our marine conservation targets engagement session, while simultaneously contributing to the modernization of the Fisheries Act. 
Our government announced on December 21, 2017 that we have conserved 7.75% of Canada's marine space. We worked very closely with our partners at Parks Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada, provincial, territorial, and indigenous governments, and other indigenous partners and stakeholders to achieve this significant marine conservation milestone. 
We continue to do so, as work under our ambitious five-point plan to meet the marine conservation targets continues. This plan includes, one, completing marine protected area establishment processes that were already under way before Canada established its interim 5% target and reaffirmed its 10% objective; two, protecting large offshore areas; three, protecting areas under pressure; four, pursuing legislative amendments that are now known as Bill C-55; and five, most relevant to the discussion at hand, advancing other effective area-based conservation measures.
The term “other effective area-based conservation measures” may sound complicated, and even hard to say, but the concept is simple. It is well recognized and used in international forums. The term refers to managed areas other than marine protected areas that offer real protection to marine biodiversity. 
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans developed rigorous science-based criteria for identifying these areas and have used these criteria to evaluate existing fisheries area closures for their contributions to marine biodiversity conservation. Fisheries and Oceans managers and scientists also adhere closely to these criteria when establishing new fisheries area closures that contribute to biodiversity conservation. Using this approach, I proudly recognize the current 51 fisheries area closures as marine refuges that play an important role in conserving Canada's precious marine biodiversity from coast to coast to coast. 
Canada's marine refuges include the recently announced offshore Pacific seamounts and vents closure, which protects hydrothermal vents and rare and regionally unique seamounts on Canada's west coast. Off the coast of Nova Scotia, the Emerald basin and Sambro bank sponge conservation areas protect globally unique concentrations of species of glass sponge, known as “Russian hat” sponges. 
In Canada's eastern Arctic, the Disko Fan conservation area protects overwintering habitat for narwhal and concentrations of corals. The coral species found there include the bamboo coral, which is one of the slowest-growing and longest-lived coral species in Canada, and which has not been found anywhere else in the world to date. 
This is a small sampling of the marine refuges that help to safeguard our unique and valuable marine ecosystems on all three of Canada's oceans. 
Currently, marine refuges are established through licence conditions and variation orders made under the Fisheries Act. These tools have an important place in fisheries management, but although they can be for long-term periods, they are not specifically designed to address long-term biodiversity objectives. As we have engaged with our partners and stakeholders on our approach to meeting Canada's marine conservation targets, they have raised this concern, and we have listened. 
Under the amended Fisheries Act, a new authority has been proposed, which would allow for regulations to be put in place to restrict specified fishing activities for the purposes of conserving and protecting marine biodiversity. This regulatory tool will be complementary to our marine protected area tool under the Oceans Act legislation. Both tools are used to protect important species, habitats, and features. The main difference between the two tools is that the new regulatory authority under the Fisheries Act would be used in cases where fishing activities pose a specific threat to the important elements of biodiversity that have been identified in an area; whereas a marine protected area under the Oceans Act can be applied to a variety of human uses as needed. 
The new proposed authority would provide us with additional flexibility to develop prohibitions that are tailor made to address the protection needs of a particular area. The government would apply this new regulation-making authority to our existing marine refuges, and in doing so would replace the current approach of outlining these fishing-related prohibitions or restrictions in licence conditions and variation orders. 
This new approach would secure the biodiversity protections afforded by these marine refuges over the long term. These regulations could also be developed for any new marine refuges moving forward. We take our 2020 marine conservation commitment seriously, but this new regulatory tool would do much more than help us to meet our 10% target. 
Marine refuges established under this authority would support our broader marine conservation work, ensuring that our oceans continue to be rich in marine biodiversity and support sustainable use for future generations of Canadians. Marine refuges will play an important role in the marine protected networks which are being developed on all three of Canada's coasts. Their establishment will also support implementation of the policy for managing the impacts of fishing on sensitive benthic areas over the long term. 
This targeted regulatory tool to establish marine refuges for the purpose of biodiversity protection would help to modernize the Fisheries Act. It would make it very clear which management measures are contributing to long-term biodiversity protection and, in doing so, would enhance transparency and effectiveness of fisheries management. 
I would now like to talk about the purpose of another proposed provision that could be used, among other things, to enhance biodiversity protection. This other amendment would enable my staff to respond quickly and effectively to urgent and unexpected threats to the conservation and protection of fish that may arise in our oceans and put some of our most treasured marine life in jeopardy. 
Top of mind for me and many Canadians, when we think about our ocean conservation needs, is the unexpected movement of the North Atlantic right whale population into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the unexpected and unprecedented losses of that endangered species that have occurred over the past year. A new proposed tool under the Fisheries Act would allow the minister to put in place targeted short-term fisheries management measures quickly and effectively to respond to urgent threats such as those being faced by the North Atlantic right whale. 
When a threat to the conservation and protection of fish arises during the fishing season, we currently issue amendments to the licence conditions and make variation orders. However, just as these tools are ill suited to addressing long-term biodiversity objectives, they are also not designed to be put in place for immediate actions to address all urgent and unanticipated threats. These tools are meant to address issues related to the sustainable use and proper management of fisheries resources. Also, the process to implement a change in licence condition is burdensome, often takes time, and variation orders are limited in scope by the regulations.
 Changes to the act would allow us to introduce targeted restrictions to fishing activity in urgent situations. Some of the threats that the North Atlantic right whale faced in 2017 are examples of urgent issues that could be addressed by this tool. 
I will conclude by saying that the new proposed tools under the amended Fisheries Act would allow us to respond effectively and flexibly to our long-term marine conservation needs, as well as to unexpected, short term, and urgent threats. These are two pieces of the broader Fisheries Act amendments that I have the pleasure to support today. This is a concrete way to incorporate modern safeguards into a strengthened Fisheries Act. 
Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to a question that one of my colleagues asked the member for Central Nova with regard to the minister's discretionary powers.
Under the bill, decisions can be based on the minister's opinions and not necessarily on scientific evidence. The member for Central Nova answered that such discretion could be a positive thing as long as the public has faith in the minister and decisions are made in a transparent way.
However, what happens if a new party takes power, if the new minister's personality is completely different, if there is not as much transparency, and if the public does not have as much confidence in that minister? 
Does the member think that the law should clearly stipulate that decisions must be based strictly on scientific evidence?
Karen Ludwig: Mr. Speaker, representing a coastal and rural riding, I can say that many of the stakeholders on the fisheries side have been very supportive of the Fisheries Act and the changes that are being proposed. For example, Melanie Sonnenberg, the president of the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation, said, “This is quite pivotal for us.... It means stability for our community as we go forward.”
We are a government that firmly puts science and evidence in every decision we make and we think that is absolutely critical. Even when there is a change of government, Canadians expect that all governments would make policy decisions based on scientific evidence, but also in deep collaboration with key stakeholders, whether they be indigenous stakeholders, the fishers, the municipalities, or members in coastal communities. That is what has been done in the development of this Fisheries Act because I have heard that from many people, not only in my riding of New Brunswick Southwest but at different annual general meetings.
Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, this legislation is really about a balancing act, respecting the fact that we want to encourage and promote activities such as fishing, but at the same time, making sure that we have legislation in place to protect the environment and to protect future generations to be able to continue to use this environment that we have now.
I am wondering if the member could speak to how important it is to achieve that balance and where we have come from, with what the Conservatives did in 2012, to where we are today with this legislation.
Karen Ludwig: Mr. Speaker, from the comments I have heard in my riding, certainly the cuts made by the Harper government were not supported. One of our campaign promises was to look at the Fisheries Act. Recently I have been blessed with a new granddaughter and I believe that there has to be a balance between the environment and the economy, and also working closely with stakeholders. I can say that I am very proud of so many of the fisheries groups in New Brunswick Southwest and elsewhere that do so much work on their own to maintain and respect the long-term resource of our marine protected areas.
I would also like to comment on the North Atlantic right whale in terms of a balance. Clearly, after the 17 deaths that we saw in 2017, there is an imbalance there. Canadians from coast to coast to coast and citizens around the world are looking for us to show leadership on the prevention and the protection and recovery of North Atlantic right whales. That is a balance and is something that we have to consider very seriously.
From the work that has been done by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans through the minister, much work has been done with round tables regarding the North Atlantic right whale and at those discussions there has been the topic of the Fisheries Act and the importance of it for protecting the long-term recovery of the North Atlantic right whale, where we have less than 450 surviving today.
Mr. Dan Ruimy (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since being elected as the member of Parliament for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, I have had the opportunity to meet with many organizations and individuals that the Fisheries Act directly impacts.
This includes organizations such as Watershed Watch, Alouette River Management Society, Kanaka Education and Environmental Partnership Society, the Katzie First Nation, local stream keepers, municipal governments in both Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge, and individuals such as Jack Emberly, who is a local author and environmentalist, and Julie Porter, who studied ecological restoration at Simon Fraser University.
My riding is a watershed community that is home to many passionate, hard-working people who are trying to protect our environment and water systems. They were all eager to educate me on fish and fish habitats in various instances such as the many roundtables I hosted, cleaning up the Katzie slough, or counting fish with stream keepers. I will never forget trying to canoe in our local waters where the invasive species of plants and algae were so dense we could barely paddle through. 
In all of these consultations, common expressions of sadness, disappointment, and even anger were apparent. The Fisheries Act had been gutted entirely, and left these groups with little support or good, clear legislation. It is time to change this and to fix the Fisheries Act.
In June 2016, the hon. Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard announced a comprehensive review of the Fisheries Act, and this gave my community hope for better legislation. After hearing and engaging with constituents on fish policy at large, I submitted a report with recommendations to the minister. Fish and fish habitat are part of the livelihood and identity of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge. Therefore, fish and fish protection policy directly impact both the environment and prosperity of my community. 
I rise today in support of the proposed Fisheries Act amendments, which would introduce key measures to ensure our fishery resources are available for generations of Canadians yet to come. Today, through proposed amendments to the act, the government is moving to restore lost measures that would protect fish and their habitat, and to modernize safeguards for the challenges we face in the 21st century. 
More than protecting further loss of these resources, we are also introducing measures that would help restore them. These actions would help maintain biodiversity and would also generate positive economic spin-offs for the fisheries. Such dual benefits reflect the goal of sustainable development, a healthy environment, a prosperous economy, and a vibrant society for current and future generations.
 All told, the fisheries sector is valued at $13 billion, and employs some 72,000 Canadians. Our fisheries are an economic driver in rural communities on all three coasts, including in many indigenous communities. That is why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans supports an economically prosperous fishery, while retaining conservation as its top priority.
 The cultural impact of the fisheries may be harder to measure in dollars and cents, but is no less important. For some families in coastal communities, fishing has been a way of life for generations. Indeed, for many indigenous peoples, fishing traditions extend back millennia.
 In developing the Fisheries Act, the government understood that the fisheries contribute to rural and indigenous communities in both tangible and intangible ways. In keeping with the principles of sustainable development, we sought to achieve a balance between environmental, economic, and social imperatives. In this way, we could help preserve the integrity of the fisheries in the years ahead.
 There is no single threat to the sustainability and productivity of our fisheries. Damage and loss of habitat, aquatic invasive species, and changes to freshwater flow all contribute to the decline of freshwater and marine fisheries. Indeed, restoring habitat provides an opportunity to redress past negative impacts.
The proposed Fisheries Act identifies four key areas that would require consideration of fish and habitat restoration measures: stock rebuilding; factors to consider when issuing permits and authorizations; ecologically significant areas; and the making of regulations. Let me take them one by one, starting with fish stocks.
The proposed act will support the restoration of degraded fish habitats. Of course, the department already works to repair past impacts and help restore depleted fish stocks. However, these activities are not integrated into key areas of its mandate. The new act would address this gap. Under the proposed amendments, when making decisions that would impact a depleted stock, the minister would need to consider whether measures are in place to rebuild that fish stock. In addition, the minister shall take into account whether these measures are in place to restore degraded fish habitat where the minister is of the opinion that the loss or degradation of fish habitat has contributed to a stock's decline.
The second area for consideration of fish habitat restoration is the list of factors the minister must review before making decisions about permits, authorizations, or regulations. The proposed amendments add a new factor for the minister to consider: do the planned offsetting activities give priority to the restoration of degraded fish habitat?
The third area for consideration of fish habitat restoration is the creation of ecologically significant areas. These areas are intended to protect sensitive and important fish habitats by prohibiting certain types of activities. The proposed amendments would make provisions for these sensitive areas clearer, stronger, and easier to implement. I will give an example of how that process might work. 
Working with partners, including indigenous groups, the department would identify potentially ecologically significant areas. Together, they would identify the best way to protect fish habitat and what activities the minister could approve. If the minister believes that habitat restoration is required to meet prescribed objectives for conservation and protection in ecologically significant areas, then a fish habitat restoration plan must be published on the public registry. Not only would this approach go a long way in restoring habitat, it would also promote greater engagement with partners, as well as greater transparency with Canadians around the entire decision-making process. 
The fourth and final area relates to the authority for making regulations for the restoration of fish habitat. This regulation-making authority can be exercised when it supports the conservation and protection of fish. These amendments help the department pursue the overall policy objective of restoring the ecological integrity of degraded or damaged aquatic habitats. Collectively, they give the department legislative authority to advance restoration planning, regulate harm to aquatic habitats from proposed development projects, guide habitat offsetting efforts, and work with multiple partners to achieve these objectives. 
Together, these proposed changes to the act would help achieve three important results. First, they would help protect biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems, which leads to more stable and resilient biological systems that can better withstand impacts related to development projects. Second, they would help build healthier and more abundant fish stocks, which in turn would make fisheries more resilient and lead to greater potential long-term economic gains. Third, the proposed changes would contribute to the sustainability of the fish stock and continued economic prosperity in Canada's fishing communities.
Coming from my riding, which is a watershed community, my constituents have spoken to me loud and clear. This is something that is not only wanted but is needed in my community and communities across this great nation. I urge all hon. members to join with me in supporting these much-needed amendments.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach: Mr. Speaker, I have asked my Liberal colleagues the same question several times.
The third recommendation in Commissioner Cohen's report indicates that the Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ mandate the promotion of salmon farming, because when farmed salmon are discharged into the ocean, they infect wild salmon with a virus and end up harming marine biodiversity. 
It is worrisome that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is turning a blind eye to Commissioner Cohen's recommendation, even though it is aware of the situation. Is it not rather odd and even irresponsible that the government is not following up on this recommendation, especially since it is seeking to reinstate the legislation on fish and fish habitat protection?
If the government supports marine biodiversity, why is it giving the department the mandate to protect our waters and fish while it continues to promote this toxic industry?
Dan Ruimy: Mr. Speaker, we are here today. It did not happen overnight. This is a by-product of decades of perhaps not paying attention to our environment, not paying attention to the things that matter in our communities. The first step, which is very clear to me, starts with the Fisheries Act. Communities need to be able to understand exactly the impact the Fisheries Act can have in helping a community and helping a municipal department determine the course of action, for example, in future developments. It is understanding that we have to be able to move forward. We cannot do that if we do not have a strong Fisheries Act. This is just the first step to make that happen.
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, last year in the budget the government decided to put $400 million into fishery innovation on the east coast. How much was there for British Columbia? There was zero. Last year as well the government tried to cancel a very popular salmon restocking fund. Again the outcry from British Columbians was incredible—I am sure the member heard about it—and the government reversed the decision. When I talk to stakeholders, they are more concerned about the government's lack of action and progress and even reporting on whether there was any progress on the Cohen commission. 
With all of these other measures affecting British Columbia, does the member think this is the best way he can advance the level of fisheries in British Columbia, or does he believe the government needs to work on these other elements which are gravely wanted in British Columbia?
Dan Ruimy: Mr. Speaker, last year, the federal government introduced a $1.5-billion oceans protection plan. That is just one part of the puzzle here. What I heard clearly in meeting after meeting, round table after round table, going out and counting salmon, going out and counting fish and looking at the connected waterways that were not connected, was that to move forward they have to have a strong Fisheries Act. This is the first step. We cannot move forward if people can do what they want with the Fisheries Act. We have to be able to support our partners across the country to ensure that the Fisheries Act allows for strong protections for fish environment. If we do not do that, our fishery will fall apart. That is why we need to have a strong Fisheries Act.
Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence.
I would first like to extend my best wishes to the fisheries minister. It is good to see him here in the chamber as he perseveres through the health challenges of life. Even though we may exchange barbs and strong differences at times, at the beginning and end of each day, we are all Canadians with families, friends, and loved ones. I wish him well.
I would also be remiss if I did not also wish my good friend and colleague, the member for Cariboo—Prince George, a speedy recovery. We all know his determination will drive his recovery as he continues to advocate for his constituents and all Canadians.
Much of what is in Bill C-68 is aimed at one objective for the Liberal government, the perpetuation of the idea of lost protections. I propose that this idea is based on false and unsubstantiated claims, and I will speak today to how those claims have not been proven or substantiated.
The Fisheries Act is one of the oldest federal statutes in Canada dating back almost 100 years. Amendments have been made to the act from time to time, and whether the act actually included a purposes section or not, the overall principle of the act has been to manage and protect our fisheries.
As we know, Canada is a vast country with coastlines and fisheries on three different oceans covering a multitude of species, some sedentary and others very migratory. Canada also has a vast array of fisheries, varying from small local clam beds to fisheries for cod and salmon extending over hundreds of thousands of square kilometres. Managing all those fisheries is complicated by the very fact that some of the most sought after species are very migratory. Some fulfill their life cycle over vast expanses of oceans, while others migrate from freshwater to marine environments and back again. 
Over the years, federal governments have taken different strategies on managing Canada's fisheries. Some management strategies have been successful, while the failure of others has been self-evident. What has been consistent is that successive governments have attempted to maintain the health of our fisheries so they are all conserved and managed in ways that allow perpetual value to be drawn from our oceans and fisheries resources. Our prosperity as Canadians depends on the sustainable management of these resources to support fishers, harvesters, and the communities that depend on them for the benefits of their subsistence.
Changes made to the Fisheries Act in 2012 and amendments in 2013 were developed to address long-standing weaknesses evidenced by the inconsistent interpretation and application of the pre-2012 Fisheries Act. In studying the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans heard from Canadians that the pre-2012 act required amendments to modernize it and make it more relevant and functional for those who live under the act every day. 
Input from Ducks Unlimited Canada stated that under the previous Fisheries Act, many of its conservation projects and activities that sought Fisheries Act changes to restore, enhance, or manage wetland habitat were deemed to be “fish habitat destruction” by DFO. In other words, these projects that could have improved our habitat and fisheries were not allowed under the pre-2012 definition. As such, the effect of the previous Fisheries Act limited this conservation organization's ability to “deliver new conservation programming designed to protect and conserve habitat that is essential to waterfowl and other wetland-dependent species, including fish.”
This is the reality of the previous prohibitions of the Fisheries Act. These are prohibitions that the government is seeking to restore in the bill. What we are presented with in Bill C-68 are proposals to amend the Fisheries Act, including some seeking to restore the previous elements of the act that had proven to be dysfunctional. The bill has a significant number of proposals. In fact, there are 58 pages of proposed amendments, not including the 13 pages of explanatory notes and revisions.
In poring over the bill over the past week, many questions have come up, which will likely take time to be answered by the ministry, by the minister, or eventually by the courts. 
As parliamentarians, we are provided technical briefings on bills that come before the House. It is a privilege that we do not take lightly. These technical briefings are meant to provide us as legislators answers to some of the difficult questions that are hidden within draft legislation. 
I must say that after attending a technical briefing on Bill C-68 earlier this week, there are more questions than answers received. I have heard from stakeholders, Canadians who live under the Fisheries Act across Canada, who also have a significant number of questions, and as a result, reasonable concerns related to the bill.
 How will habitat banks be established? There seem to be no parameters. Much of this is left to be within regulations that no one has seen any drafting of at this point. How will those habitat banks be monitored and validated? Again, there is nothing specific in the proposed act, and it is all left open to what it might be down the road. There are many questions but so few answers.
What class of projects will qualify as designated projects, meaning which ones will or will not have prior approval? There are no answers. 
What is the definition of an “ecologically significant” area? I found the definition within Bill C-68 to be very vague. There was no specific direction as to what might or might not be considered an ecologically significant area. Would this be an area that may hold a few goldfish or would it be a key component to a spawning area for some of our precious salmon stocks? There are no definitions within the act.
What information factored into ministerial decisions will the minister be able to withhold from Canadians with a direct interest in the decisions? We see portions of the proposed act that say information to the minister may be held confidential and not released. What about the proponent whose project is held up and has no access to know what information or what area of information might be withheld from them?
Who will be able to establish laws over fisheries and oceans? How will consistency be ensured to ensure that a patchwork of legal regimes is not created across Canada? There were provisions in the previous act where laws regarding fisheries were shared with the provinces under agreements. We also see this now as a possibility with first nations. We welcome the involvement of first nations in the management of our fisheries, but with the multitude of different first nations across the country, there are questions from people who may potentially be impacted by this as to how they would monitor these new laws that might be in place. Who would oversee them in general?
Again, on the new laws that may come into place, who will enforce laws of the various jurisdictions that the bill proposes to recognize? We do not know whether that would be under the laws of Canada, under the laws of the provinces, or under the laws of other bodies that may be created to create laws, which the bill would enable them to do.
Again, how will those laws be applied and enforced beyond Canada's 200-mile economic zone to the entire continental shelf? I do not know if anyone has addressed that point in the debate on Bill C-68. It proposes that the Fisheries Act apply to all waters on the continental shelf, beyond Canada's 200-mile economic zone. These are the types of questions that may only be determined through committee work and the further development of regulations, but this may eventually end up in the courts, and it could be years down the road before we have answers.
There are many proposals in this bill related to indigenous communities and their participation in the management and conservation of fisheries. The Conservative Party of Canada's policy declaration clearly supports the economic sustainability of indigenous communities. I believe that the fisheries could be a driving factor in sustaining those indigenous communities. However, the ambiguity of this bill's provisions for indigenous communities is not helpful. In fact, it may be counterproductive. 
First nations, harvesters, and processors all need certainty of access to the resource to retain investments and to remain competitive in what is an ever more competitive world market. I have been meeting with stakeholders over the past few months, and their biggest concern is certainty of access to the market, but more so, certainty of access to the product, whether it is fish products, finfish fisheries, aquaculture, or other types.
Already I am hearing from indigenous organizations that work in fisheries that this bill is deficient in defining the essential details of what it proposes for indigenous communities. It is safe to say that the government's response will be something along the lines of, “Just trust us.” We have seen what the government does when we agree to just trust it. It has a Prime Minister who has been found guilty of breaking Canadian law four times, yet there are no consequences.
A significant number of indigenous governments and fisheries organizations have valid reasons for doubting the sincerity of the government. I will share with the House one example of how the government undermined the trust of indigenous peoples in the review process that led to this bill. 
In 2016, the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard directed the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to undertake a study to review the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act and to table a report early in 2017. As such, a motion was passed to undertake a study and to table the report by January 30, 2017. Once the study was under way, it became very clear that the deadline imposed by the government was insufficient for the task at hand or for the process of consultation created by the government. The minister's office even put out a news release stating that feedback from public consultations would be provided to the committee for consideration in its report. That news release was revised a second and third time, but the original said that all feedback would be provided to the committee. 
Opposition members of the committee tried repeatedly to pass motions for an extension of the study deadline. The government members on the committee eventually agreed to add four meetings, or two weeks, to the deadline. Indigenous fishery stakeholders were invited to participate in consultation sessions and to submit briefs for the committee's review of the Fisheries Act. In fact, through a participant funding program alone, 54 different indigenous groups received funding to assist in the preparation of their submissions to the committee. These 54 groups received over $900,000 to produce their briefs. What happened to their input? How did the government treat their consultations? Sadly, due to the government's refusal to extend the committee study deadline, these 54 briefs arrived after the committee held its last meeting for the study on December 12, 2016.
This is how the government has undermined the relationship with indigenous communities in the review process that led up to this bill. Indigenous Canadians deserve better. The government has repeatedly stated that this bill is necessary to restore so-called lost protections. I have asked the government for proof of harm resulting from these so-called lost protections numerous times. In response to one particular Order Paper question, the government indicated that it could not produce any proof, because the department did not have the resources or the mandate to make that determination. There we have it. This bill is meant to restore something the government cannot produce any proof of. 
The minister made claims of face-to-face consultations when he appeared at the committee on November 2, 2016, yet an Order Paper question response, dated March 22, 2017, months after the minister stated that he was having face-to-face consultations, contradicted this, stating that no face-to-face consultations had taken place. So much for consultation, transparency, and accountability, a trend we see with the Liberal government.
Why should Canadians, indigenous or non-indigenous, trust the government's motivations in this bill? The proposed alternative measure section states: 
 No admission, confession or statement accepting responsibility for a given act or omission made by an alleged offender as a condition of being dealt with by alternative measures is admissible in evidence against them in any civil or criminal proceedings. 
This is an absolute disconnect with accountability. The minister or ministerial staff do not have to disclose information or consequences to proponents. This is a case of a law being implemented with no consequences for breaking the law. Tie this to the fact that the Prime Minister has been found guilty of breaking the law on four counts, yet there are no consequences laid out in the law.
I also have concerns about the establishment of advisory panels, which would be remunerated and paid expenses. This sounds like typical Liberalism: creating additional layers of bureaucracy with no stipulations developed regarding membership, frequency and location of meetings, remuneration amounts, or any of the usual measures put in place to avoid runaway spending and lack of accountability.
Proposed subsection 8(1) of the bill sets out the establishment of fees for quotas, and proposed section 14 establishes the setting out of fees for conferral. In other words, more fees would be passed on to permit or authorization holders. Proposed section 14 would also create the ability to have fees for regulatory processes, with no parameters given as to who may be charged and how much. Proponents should open their wallets, because the government wants to empty them before anyone starts.
There are significant sections in the 2012 revisions to the act that gave the minister the ability to designate ecologically significant areas. This section has been retained. Many pieces of the 2012 legislation have been retained in this act. However, it will take more time to flesh them out and see what was done in 2012 that has been retained and is recognized as good work.
Sections 4.1 to 4.3 of the 2012 revisions provide the legal framework to guide future agreements with provinces to further the purposes of the act. They also allow the Governor in Council to declare that certain provisions of the act or its regulations do not apply in a province if a federal-provincial agreement provides that a provincial law is equivalent to the provisions of the federal regulations. This segment is retained in Bill C-68 and would be further extended to situations where there is an agreement with a recognized indigenous governing body.
The standing committee also heard from the Mining Association of Canada on the changes made to the act in 2012. I quote from Justyna Laurie-Lean, of the Mining Association, who said that the changes in 2012 have, “in practice, broadened the circumstances in which the section 35 prohibitions apply and increased the circumstances in which an authorization and offsets are required.”
These are only some examples of why I say that claims of lost protections are false and unsubstantiated. Many of the recommendations of the standing committee have been implemented. One of them, recommendation no. 3, was that the original definition of HAAD be revised before being reinserted.
As members can see, there are many more questions about this bill. I look forward to questions from my colleagues and to furthering this document in committee.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I note that my hon. colleague mentioned technical briefings to understand Bill C-68. I assure him that I did not need a technical briefing. I was so relieved to read legislation that made sense again. 
When I was in this House in 2012, when Bill C-38 was tabled at first reading, it was over 440 pages long and changed 70 different pieces of legislation. We were never offered a technical briefing. There was a rush to push it through. Former fisheries ministers, two former Conservative fisheries ministers and two former Liberal fisheries ministers, ministers Fraser, Siddon, Dhaliwal, and Anderson, were united in saying that what was happening was the gutting of the Fisheries Act. 
I would ask my hon. colleague to reflect that perhaps this legislation coming forward to re-establish the protection of fish habitat and to re-establish fundamental notions that we protect our fisheries and fish, regardless of whether they are destined for human consumption, would be an improvement in Canada's ability to steward the natural environment. We, as Canadians, hold an obligation to take care of these living marine resources far better than we have in the past.
Mel Arnold: Mr. Speaker, not being part of the previous government, I cannot speak directly to how that act was brought in. What I noted in my presentation today is that portions of that 2012 act remain. I have not had the full amount of time to determine exactly how many of those 2012 changes are there, but we see this act as possibly furthering them. The questions I have pointed out are the big concerns we have with this act.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the government went through two rounds of online public consultations. There were over 100 meetings with stakeholders, including indigenous groups and many other interested stakeholders. The overwhelming consensus seemed to be that there needs to be protection of fish habitat and fish. 
Former prime minister Stephen Harper, in the changes referenced earlier, took away a lot of that protection. The essence of this bill, at least in part, is to look at replacing. It would fulfill a commitment by this government during the campaign to put back in place these protective measures.
Does the member not agree that the whole idea of coming up with protective habitat for fish and protecting fish in the long run is better for all of us here in Canada?
Mel Arnold: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that protection of fish and the sustainability of our fisheries is of utmost importance to all Canadians. However, what I pointed out in my intervention earlier was that the claims of lost protections simply are not substantiated. They are not true. I posed the question in an Order Paper question, giving the Liberals a full opportunity to point out where those protections had been lost or where harm had been caused. The answer that came back was zero, absolute zero. The protections were not lost. The government is using this again as a campaign speech to say that it has restored those loss protections, which were not lost in the first place.
Dan Albas: Mr. Speaker, when I speak with Rick Simpson, who is a big advocate in my area for fisheries and protection of fish, we talk about the steelhead and the extinction-like level crisis there. This legislation will not touch that. The legislation, as far as I can see, will not implement any of the recommendations by the Cohen Commission.
Last year, the Liberal government government tried to cancel a very popular salmon restocking fund that helped local groups look after our iconic salmon. Last, it gave $400 million to the east coast to help fishers innovate, but zero for British Columbia. 
What is in the bill that is good for British Columbia or is this again just electoral campaigning for the Liberals?
Mel Arnold: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with Mr. Simpson. He is a great advocate and a solid worker on behalf of the fisheries.
 Right now nothing in the bill will make a difference for our steelhead stocks in British Columbia. They have continued to slide, especially under the current government, to the point now where there is pressure to designate them as a severely endangered species. 
I have heard from stakeholders that the government has invested over $7 million in acoustic equipment to listen to whales. That might be an admirable expenditure, but it only put $1.2 million into restoring fish stocks. Without fish stocks for southern resident killer whales to feed on, those acoustic devices are not going to hear anything. That is the typical poorly directed spending of the government, which is not addressed in the bill. 
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the last part of my question. I reflect on the days when I was in opposition, and the then prime minister and the budget. The leader of the Green Party made reference to the budget bill that proposed changes to around 70 pieces of legislation. One was to stop providing protection for fish and fish habitat. This caused a fairly significant reaction outside the House of Commons. Many concerned Canadians wanted to see that protection remain in place. I will not talk about the omnibus nature of how it was brought in, but it went against what people wanted, whether it was stakeholders or the average Canadian who were familiar with this. That was why our party campaigned on rectifying it.
Does the member not believe we should have listened to Canadians? After all, they see it as an important issue and, in good part, that is why we have brought forward the legislation.
Mel Arnold: Mr. Speaker, I will comment on what we found as fact when we started to look at the proposed changes. I am not denying that Canadians are concerned with fisheries and the protection of them and fish habitat. I gave the government full opportunity to prove what was being said and the members could not. There was no proof of loss of harm. It was a campaign stunt that worked. I give the Liberals credit for that, but that was all it was, a campaign issue. No proof of lost protection has ever been presented to me when I asked an Order Paper question or to the committee when we asked the question multiple times of multiple witnesses. When they were questioned, they were not able to provide any proof of loss of protection.
Mrs. Bernadette Jordan (South Shore—St. Margarets, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North. 
For countless generations, our fisheries have been an indelible part of a rural and coastal life, including in certain indigenous communities, and in my community of South Shore—St. Margarets. However, changes to the Fisheries Act in 2012 and 2013 weakened the government's ability to protect fish and the habitat they depend on. Today, I am proud to support amendments to the act that, together, would restore lost protections and incorporate modern safeguards into legislation. 
The proposed amendments are part of the government's broader view of environmental and regulatory processes that cover several key areas. For my part, I would like to address proposed changes to restore our ability to protect fish and fish habitat.
 As a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, we heard time and again that habitat had to be protected. Therefore, let me begin by providing some context into why these changes are so important. 
Our fisheries sector and recreational fishing provides jobs for 72,000 Canadians, who help add $13 billion to our economy every year. Moreover, we respect and recognize the fishing rights of the indigenous peoples of Canada. Fisheries also contribute to the food security of coastal communities on all three coasts, as well as in freshwater areas.
 However, the sustainability of our fisheries is under threat from various forces. One key threat is the degradation of fish habitat. Developments near water, for example, can disturb the ground and lead to erosion or increased sediment in water. This, in turn, can affect a myriad of things that support our aquatic food chains, including water chemistry, spawning beds, and vegetation that fish depend on for survival. Other threats include building dams and stream crossings, and extracting water. These activities, if not planned carefully, can alter the flow of water in a stream, lake, or river. This, too, can affect habitat or cause the death of fish.
 More than 40 years ago, Parliament recognized these threats and acted. Parliament amended the Fisheries Act in 1977 to include protection for fish and fish habitat, and not just those connected to commercial, recreational, and aboriginal fisheries. In 1977, the amendments made had the foresight to protect all fish and fish habitat. Other amendments protected fish against the death of fish by means other than fishing. 
Unfortunately, these sensible protections were undermined by omnibus bills introduced in 2012 and 2013. In addition, a reduced capacity at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans affected the department's ability to do its job properly. Put together, the results were much weaker protection for fish and their habitat.
 Canadians, including indigenous peoples, industry, and environmental groups, told us they were concerned about these changes and how they were made. This government promised to review the changes made previously, restore lost protections, and introduce modern safeguards into the Fisheries Act. With the amendments to the act proposed today, that is exactly what we are doing.
Let me recap how we have arrived today with the bill before the House.
 The Department of Fisheries and Oceans plays a significant role in the protection of our fisheries. It does this, in part, by assessing infrastructure and development projects that could affect our fishery resources. Indeed, over the next decade, the department expects to review some $600 billion in development proposals. For that reason, as part of the government's review of environmental and regulatory processes, we committed to examining changes made to the Fisheries Act in 2012 and 2013. 
In 2016, as members may recall, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans reviewed the impact of those controversial changes. In addition, the department consulted extensively with Canadians across the country, both face-to-face and online. Throughout that process, we paid particular attention to indigenous peoples. In total, we held more than 170 meetings with indigenous groups, and we will continue to engage with them as the bill moves forward.
 In addition to input from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and indigenous groups, the bill is informed by expert reports and consultations with the provinces and territories, industry, environmental groups, and other stakeholders, as well as individual Canadians. Previous recommendations from the Auditor General of Canada were also considered. 
Throughout this process, the message was clear. Canada needs to restore the strong habitat protection measures that were in place until 2012. I want to assure the House that the government has heard this message. Today, we are acting to restore lost protections and introduce modern safeguards that will help ensure future generations can benefit from the fishery.
Let me summarize some of the specific changes that are proposed. 
The new and amended act would restore protections for all fish and fish habitats, rather than only giving protection to fish that would be part of commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries. It would restore provisions that prohibited harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat. It would restore a prohibition against causing the death of fish by means other than fishing. It would provide the authority to develop new tools to allow flexibility for how the department would regulates projects, which includes tools to manage large-scale activities, activities in ecologically significant areas, and smaller routine development activities. Furthermore, it would improve transparency through an online registry that would release information on project decisions to the public.
 These and other proposed amendments will strengthen the legal foundation for effective management of fish and their habitat by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 
More than four decades ago, the House passed legislation that, in hindsight, was visionary. Long before the expression “sustainable development” was commonplace, our predecessors acted to protect all fish and their habitat. Six years ago, however, we lost those protections, which has put social, environmental, economic, and cultural values at risk.
 With the bill before the House today, we have an opportunity to restore what was lost. For the sake of much-needed protections to fish and their habitat, as well as the integrity of the House, I encourage all hon. members to join me in supporting the bill, for now and for future generations that will benefit from a sustainable fisheries.
Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the work she does sitting beside me on the fisheries and oceans committee, and for representing the people of Nova Scotia well.
 I know she was here when the last speaker said there was no evidence given for lost protections and that no one could answer the question. I think she might say they did not give the witnesses a chance to answer the questions because most times the members cut them off. Could she speak to the value of the information we heard from the witnesses in bringing the bill forward?
Bernadette Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work on the fisheries and oceans committee. He is right. We heard countless testimony from a number of groups about the problems caused by the elimination of the protections for fish and fish habitat. We heard from environmental groups. We heard from fishery groups. We heard from community groups.
 Perhaps one of the reasons why my hon. colleague from across the way said there was no proof was because the Conservatives cut the scientists and closed the offices, which meant there was no enforcement. Therefore, it was really hard to collect the data that was needed to ensure we were going forward in the right direction.
Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the need to make changes to reflect what the Conservative government did six years ago when it deregulated the industry and removed the protections we needed for future generations. Could she expand on what she sees as the real strength to this, not just for the present but for future generations, our children, their grandchildren, and so on?
Bernadette Jordan: Mr. Speaker, when the protections to fish and fish habitat were eliminated in the omnibus bills in 2012 and 2013, the previous government used a sledgehammer when it could have used tweezers. There were problems with the act. There is no question there were problems with the agricultural communities that had to deal with drainage ditches and the protection of fish. However, those could have been addressed in a much simpler fashion.
 The new legislation and the new codes of practice will allow people to know the guidelines in advance. It is a more streamlined process. It will be a much easier process for everyone, recognizing we had a good fishery before 2012. With these changes, we will have a good fishery for all future generations.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets has also championed another bill we are working on in the House right now, Bill C-64, which deals with derelict vessels, and I thank her for that.
She happened to mention that we had a good fishery in 2012 and we will have a good fishery again. I think of the historical nature of the Fisheries Act, which came into being in 1868. Let us consider what we have lost. We had an abundant fishery, when we consider the Atlantic coast and the great Newfoundland cod fishery, which maintained communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and much of Atlantic Canada for generations. By the early 1990s, that fishery was destroyed.
Rebuilding fisheries is one of the things I am pleased about with respect to this legislation. It changed the focus to restoration of fisheries. I wonder if the hon. member has any comments on that aspect.
Bernadette Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her advocacy on behalf of our fisheries. We recognize that they sustain so many of our coastal communities.
My colleague is right. This legislation is not just about protecting fish and fish habitat. It is about growing fish habitat and making sure that it is sustainable in the long term. We need to make sure that we do not just sustain our fishery but have an abundance in our fishery, and this legislation would go a long way toward making sure that this happens.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure it is to rise and speak to this very important piece of legislation. I am going to talk about the commitment the government made to the fishing industry as a whole, about why this is such valuable legislation, and maybe even a bit about the process.
I believe that the minister and his staff have done a fantastic job in presenting the House with legislation that I would have thought all members would be supporting. It was a very thorough process. In 2016, the minister responsible asked the standing committee to review some changes brought in through the back door of a budget bill when Stephen Harper was prime minister, back in 2012. I sat in opposition during that period of time.
There were a number of changes to 70 different pieces of legislation, this being one of them. What we found was that the changes to the fisheries were quite negative. The reaction of different stakeholders and Canadians as a whole was one of disappointment. They wanted to know, first, why the government was making those changes, because it was generally felt that they were not in the best interest of the industry as a whole, and second, why the government decided to make those changes through the back door in a piece of budget legislation, when they had absolutely nothing to do with the budget.
From what I understand, the current minister asked the standing committee to review the 2012 approach of changing the legislation and to come up with some recommendations. There were over two dozen recommendations brought forward by the standing committee. The minister did not leave it at that. There were two sessions of online communications to the public as a whole. There were well over 100 different meetings with different stakeholders, always with special attention to indigenous people, especially on matters such as this.
The minister has been very thorough in terms of ensuring that what we have today is good, sound, well-supported legislation. I would challenge my Conservative friends across the way to rethink some of their positions on this piece of legislation. Not only does it address many of the problems created by the 2012 budget, but it also advances the whole framework of why we have this legislation, which I believe is really important.
It is all about proper management, control of the fisheries, and conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat. From my perspective, that is what the legislation is all about. The changes advanced by the minister are a positive reflection of what Canadians and stakeholders have said to the government over the last year and a half, in terms of trying to better understand the types of changes that are necessary.
The other piece of good news is that two promises, two commitments made to Canadians in the last election would be kept by the passage of this legislation. One of them was in regard to the 2012 budget. We made a commitment back then to make those changes, and this legislation does just that. At the same time, the Prime Minister made a commitment that we would bring forward legislation that would further expand the issue of fish and the protection of fish and fish habitat. Once again, that is something that is done in this legislation.
In going through the bill, there is one area I want to emphasize. From my perspective, it captures the essence of what the legislation would really do. It would:
 provide measures for the protection of fish and fish habitat with respect to works, undertakings or activities that may result in the death of fish or the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, including in ecologically significant areas, as well as measures relating to the modernization of the regulatory framework such as authorization of projects, establishment of standards and codes of practice, creation of fish habitat banks by a proponent of a project and establishment of a public registry; 
That captures a lot of what this legislation is attempting to do. I would reflect on the legislation as a whole, and we have heard others comment on it. The fishing industry in Canada contributes in many different ways. One could look at it from a heritage perspective, whether it is the Inuit or indigenous people as a whole, and the meaning behind fishing as an industry or a lifestyle in the many different coastal regions. 
We have heard from many members of Parliament from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We understand and appreciate our northern coast, and let us not forget our inland fishing industry. We have had members stand up and provide comment on that issue as well.
In many ways, we are talking about tens of thousands of direct, good-quality, middle-class jobs. These jobs have been there in the past, and if we manage this wonderful, valuable resource, they will continue to be there into the future. If we continue to look at ways in which we can do better, have a greener economy, and incorporate different forms of technology, I believe we can increase the overall economic impact of our fishing industry.
Over the years, Canadians have benefited both socially and economically. Is it too much to ask of legislators to look at what took place 40 years ago, which was referred to earlier? One could look at many of the environmental terms we use today or the idea of sustainable development. One could look at the fishing industry and some of the legislation that was first brought in dealing with environmental types of issues. This is one of the areas of debate that have occurred for decades inside the House of Commons. 
There is nothing wrong with the Government of Canada making a statement through this legislation to recognize the importance of fish habitat and empower the minister, whoever he or she may be, whether today or in the future, to better protect fish habitat. I would suggest that this is very progressive in its nature as legislation.
I am pleased to hear the comments thus far from the leader of the Green Party and from the New Democrats. Both parties seem to support the legislation. I am not perfectly clear on how the Conservatives will be voting, but I get the sense that they are not going to be supporting it. Maybe during questions and answers we might get some clarification on that. If the Conservatives want to be in touch with what Canadians really think is important on issues such as this, they would be better off to appreciate that the preservation or promotion of fish habitat, looking after it not only for today but for tomorrow, is a positive thing. 
The Conservatives should be onside with the government on this. What the government is saying, through the many members of Parliament who have spoken whether it is here or in caucus, is that this is good legislation. It is all about the preservation or our fish and fish habitat. That is a good thing.
Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I see that the intent of this bill is to enhance Canada's fish stocks and avoid unnecessary negative impacts to industries that rely on access to water, but one thing I do not see in this bill that I would have liked to see is some protection for the industries that depend on access to water. 
Members may be aware that in my riding, the Coast Guard did not shut down the shipping channel and as a result of its escorting tankers, ice floes crushed the border crossing. I have been unable to get anyone on the government side to act to reopen the border. Industries on both sides that need access to that waterway are being impacted. I did not see anything in the bill that might address that. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could comment.
Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I want to be sensitive to the question, but I do not know the specific background to that issue. However, I can say that the government has brought forward legislation which, as a whole, is being very well received by all of the different stakeholders and Canadians. The government has also reinforced it by providing a substantial amount of money. We are talking about a quarter of a billion dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars. Not only are we creating good, solid legislation to support the industry, but we are also ensuring that the financial resources will be available to enforce and protect.
The Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will have three minutes and 30 seconds remaining in questions and comments when the House next resumes debate on this bill.

Statements By Members
Canadian Olympic AthletesMs. Filomena Tassi (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate all our Canadian athletes who are participating in the Olympics. I am so proud that we have three Hamiltonians representing us: Laura Fortino, Sarah Nurse, and Nick Poloniato.
Nick was a standout football player who suffered a broken leg, but he did not let that crush his love for sport. He found the bobsled. Then there is Sarah Nurse. Sarah, at the age of five, dreamed of playing on the Canadian women's hockey team, and today that dream has been realized. Then we have Laura Fortino. Laura Fortino's discipline and commitment are second to none. She is a true role model for all. We will never forget the 2014 Sochi games when she assisted in that overtime goal that brought home the gold for the Canadian women's hockey team.
I want to congratulate all athletes and their families on a job very well done. We are going to be cheering them on from here. Go Canada go.
Poverty ReductionMr. Glen Motz (Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, CPC): Mr. Speaker, It is my privilege to highlight the vigorous leadership of the community of Medicine Hat on helping those in need. Thrive is a Medicine Hat and region strategy to end poverty and increase well-being by 2030. Together as a community we are building access to resources and services to assist those in need with such things as food and income security, transportation access, and housing.
As evidenced by our community's approach on ending homelessness, Medicine Hat is known for using innovation to address social issues. For example, Thrive launched Help Seeker, an app that is dedicated to connecting those in need with services near them in real time. Thrive is bringing the community together by removing barriers to access services that will not only lift people out of poverty, but will prevent them from falling into it in the first place. The best part is there is no values test required for this program, as anyone in need qualifies.
I salute our great community leaders whose hard work brought Thrive into focus to ensure everyone in southern Alberta is better off by addressing poverty and increasing well-being.
Bibi Nasib KaurMs. Anju Dhillon (Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to express my feelings regarding a woman who inspired me to be strong and never let adversity hold me back.
One month ago, I lost a very special person in my life, my grandmother, Bibi Nasib Kaur, who was born in 1919.
I would like to pay tribute to her in the presence of my colleagues because one of the proudest moments in her life was when I became an MP. She could not believe it. She was born and grew up in an era when women could not find work outside the home, let alone become parliamentarians.
It is rare these days to still see people born in that year, but Bibi Nasib Kaur was a very strong woman, both mentally and physically. She lived through very difficult times. She saw the world change, but no matter what she had to face, she remained unwavering. She was afraid of no one and refused to be intimidated. She would not let herself get pushed around, and she would not be taught how to think or act. 
Especially today, when women are carving the way for equality, she is inspirational. I will miss my Bibi.
Lunar New YearMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada's rich multicultural mosaic has brought us vibrant cultural celebrations from every corner of the globe. In the world today, over 1.5 billion people celebrate the lunar new year. This year, 2018, is the year of the dog. With the faces of the world spread across Canada, many Canadians are celebrating the lunar new year with colourful cultural performances, meaningful practices, and delicious food in their own communities.
I was delighted to attend a number of fabulous lunar new year events in metro Toronto. The leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, also joined in the celebration. 
In Vancouver East, community leaders have organized the 45th annual Vancouver Chinatown Spring Festival Parade, which will be held on February 18. It will feature traditional lion dancing, multicultural dance troupes, marching bands, martial arts performances, and indigenous drummers. 
Together let us all celebrate our families, our heritage, and our diversity.
 Gong Hey Fat Choy. Gong Xi Gong XI.
Reesor Siding StrikeMr. Paul Lefebvre (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, February 10, 2018, marked the 55th anniversary of the terrible tragedy that happened in a community not too far from my hometown of Kapuskasing called Reesor Siding. Eleven union workers were shot during the Reesor Siding strike of 1963, and three of them lost their lives during a confrontation which happened that very night.
The 1963 Reesor Siding strike was one of the most significant and tragic labour disputes in the history of Canada. The strike by lumber and sawmill workers at the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company tore apart the communities in the region. 
I invite all members of the House to learn more about this strike, but mostly, I invite my colleagues to remember the tragedy that happened and to remember Fernand Drouin, and brothers Irenée and Joseph Fortier, who lost their lives while fighting for better working conditions. 
Even after half a century, it is regrettable that health and safety in some workplaces in Canada remain an aspiration rather than a reality.
Lunar New YearHon. Alice Wong (Richmond Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and honour that I extend greetings to my House colleagues and Canadians from coast to coast to coast on the occasion of the lunar new year at the end of this week. It is the tradition of Canadians with Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese heritage to celebrate this wondrous occasion, and I invite all Canadians to celebrate together. 
This lunar new year is the year of the dog, an animal that is renowned for its loyalty, honesty, and justness, qualities that I strive to achieve every day in representing the people of Richmond Centre. I encourage all members of the House to reflect upon those very important traits of the dog in the service of their communities and their constituents in the year ahead. 
On behalf of my beautiful riding of Richmond Centre, I wish each and every Canadian a happy lunar new year. 
 Gong Hey Fat Choy.
Black History MonthMr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Black History Month provides members of Parliament with the opportunity to thank some of our most remarkable community leaders. They are people like Pat Moore. 
Pat has been helping people in the Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park communities for decades. People in my riding know Pat has been a tireless supporter of women, children, and youth services. She has been a staunch advocate for programming for women who have experienced physical and emotional abuse, and has been a leader in efforts to financially empower women. 
Pat also remains a key leader in the co-operative housing movement in Toronto. She is vice-president of the Thorncliffe Park Tenants Association, advocating for residents. For more than 30 years, she has worked with TNO, the Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office in Thorncliffe Park. 
Of course, there are days that when I see her coming, I get a little nervous knowing she will have work for me to do. However, she always stands out as a figure whose commitment and dedication to our community are worthy of championing during Black History Month. 
I thank Pat for all she has done, and all she continues to contribute to Don Valley West.
Doris McLeanHon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise to pay tribute on the passing of Yukon elder Doris McLean, who was a great mentor to me when I was president of the Skookum Jim Friendship Centre. 
McLean was a pioneer in indigenous self-government and the revitalization of first nation language and culture. As chief of the Carcross/Tagish First Nation from 1988 to 1992, she helped to finalize Yukon's Umbrella Final Agreement modern treaty in 1990, giving her people self-government. 
In the 1970s, she established the Skookum Jim/Keish Tlingit Dancers, which would eventually evolve into the nationally celebrated Dakhká Khwáan Dancers. She would serve as the group's founding elder. Her daughter Marilyn Jensen is one of its most prominent members. 
Throughout her career of service, she would also serve as the first Canadian female indigenous sergeant-at-arms for the Yukon Legislative Assembly. 
Doris McLean's wisdom, storytelling, and sense of humour will be missed by us all.
 Kwänaschis.
Canada Summer Jobs ProgramMr. Mark Warawa (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC): Mr. Speaker, constituents in my riding were shocked that the Prime Minister bullied them. He bullied organizations and businesses that use Canada summer jobs funding to hire Canadian students. He told funding applicants that they had to sign his new attestation form confirming that their core values were his core values. 
The Prime Minister's decision to force his values test on Canadians is inappropriate and wrong. It is an attack on our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is already hurting Canadian communities. Roughly half the applicants from my riding of Langley—Aldergrove were impacted by this heavy-handed decision. This summer, students will not get the jobs they were counting on to help pay for their tuition. The homeless will not get the help they need. The disabled and seniors will not get the help they need. The environment will not get the help it needs. 
This new values test is hurting Canada. The Prime Minister needs to apologize and stop his intolerant discrimination. 
FisheriesHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my riding, fishing is one of our most important industries. Our tasty cold-water fish can be found on the plates of happy consumers around the world. 
Cape Breton's fishing communities are very happy with the trade agreements our government is working hard on to reduce duties on our international fish exports, making these products more affordable to all and putting more money in our fishers' pockets. 
Another good news story for our fisheries I would like to state in the House is the recent announcement the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard made last week in Vancouver. The minister's amendments to the Fisheries Act protect our much valued fish habitats, have more indigenous involvement, and most importantly, maintain the fabric of our communities by keeping the fishing enterprises family owned and operated.
I would like to welcome to Ottawa today fisheries representatives from the Atlantic region and Gaspé area, including John Couture of Cape Breton, and his delegation, to discuss these positive changes to this very important industry.